PDA

View Full Version : al-Megrahi at death's door?



Heyesey
08-29-2011, 02:40 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14705004


If this guy dies, the chances are we'll never find out who bombed Pan AM 188; people will just chalk him off as the bomber and there will never be a valid trial of anybody.

richief
08-29-2011, 02:59 AM
The chances are we won't find out either way. It is so far in the past that people are starting not to care.

Prurient Purveyer
08-29-2011, 03:41 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14705004


If this guy dies, the chances are we'll never find out who bombed Pan AM 188; people will just chalk him off as the bomber and there will never be a valid trial of anybody.

What happened on flight 188? The Lockerbie bombing occurred on flight 103.

He was convicted as the bomber, Libya accepted it was responsible for the act and the forensic and detective work in putting the case against this man was quite simply breath taking.

He was released to die and that's what he is close to doing, the people in who's care he is are acting under license to the Scottish Authorities.

baller16
08-29-2011, 04:26 AM
The chances are we won't find out either way. It is so far in the past that people are starting not to care. I guarantee you the families of the 180+ US victims care.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 04:34 AM
What happened on flight 188? The Lockerbie bombing occurred on flight 103.

Gaaah ... my memory's starting to go.


He was convicted as the bomber


That trial was ruled void as unsafe.

JayneyRedd
08-29-2011, 08:34 AM
That trial was ruled void as unsafe.

He was still imprisioned for the crime up until his release on 'compassionate grounds' two years ago - we were told he had only months to live and he was returned to his family to die.

As we can see now, that was clearly false. I believe he may be attempting to stage some kind of excuse to avoid re-capture, as with the fall of Gaddafi it is likely he will be re-arrested and imprisioned once more (deservedly so, in my opinion).

It is unlikely that he acted alone on blowing up the plane over Lockerbie, and it is an injustice that those others responsible for that crime are unlikely to ever be brought to justice.

LawyerLee
08-29-2011, 09:31 AM
He was still imprisioned for the crime up until his release on 'compassionate grounds' two years ago - we were told he had only months to live and he was returned to his family to die.

As we can see now, that was clearly false. I believe he may be attempting to stage some kind of excuse to avoid re-capture, as with the fall of Gaddafi it is likely he will be re-arrested and imprisioned once more (deservedly so, in my opinion).

It is unlikely that he acted alone on blowing up the plane over Lockerbie, and it is an injustice that those others responsible for that crime are unlikely to ever be brought to justice.
I would argue, that no matter how bad the crime, if he has been already been tried, served a sentence and was released early on "compassionate grounds", he should not be retried for the same offence.

There are clear guidelines and structure in western law that prevent individuals from being tried repeatedly for the same crime, although this will not prevent him from receiving a bullet in the head by some over-zealous soldier in the future, if America invades Libya as is likely the case.

One should also not assume that al-Megrahi's release was based on a medical examination by a Libyan medic. He was being held in Scotland, and so his medical care would have come under the Scottish prison system's healthcare. What would have been their reason for falsifying his medical documents to declare he only had a "couple of months to live"?

It is well documented that people often exceed their expected life-span in the case of illnesses. Just as common are those who do not get to live as long as doctors state they will.

al-Megrahi may be "alive", but at this point in time, is he truly "living"?

That being said, one should also not hold out for a death-bed confession, even if he is captured and taken away for "questioning". As far as I know, up to now, he has not divulged any information about any living partner in the crime he was tried for, and I presume, this will remain the case. This could be because his family have received "special favours" for his silence, by Gaddafi's regime, but as this would be merely a supposition, one cannot assume it is fact.

JayneyRedd
08-29-2011, 09:45 AM
One should also not assume that al-Megrahi's release was based on a medical examination by a Libyan medic. He was being held in Scotland, and so his medical care would have come under the Scottish prison system's healthcare. What would have been their reason for falsifying his medical documents to declare he only had a "couple of months to live"?



Increased trade links between the UK and Libya.

The deal allowed Gaddafi to bring home his citizen, to much fanfare in Tripoli at the time, and the Scottish government shouldered the 'blame' allowing Parliament in London to tut-tut and tisk in order to appease the (quite rightly) outraged Americans.

It is entirely possible that al-Megrahi still isn't ill at all, but fears for his life and liberty now that he no longer has the protection of Gaddafi, and may disappear, presumed dead.




That being said, one should also not hold out for a death-bed confession, even if he is captured and taken away for "questioning". As far as I know, up to now, he has not divulged any information about any living partner in the crime he was tried for, and I presume, this will remain the case. This could be because his family have received "special favours" for his silence, by Gaddafi's regime, but as this would be merely a supposition, one cannot assume it is fact

It is unlikely that there will be any sort of confession from al-Megrahi, unless he is captured by rebels and one is tortured out of him, and would therefore be unsafe in that instance.

I am making suppositions since, in the absence of facts we can merely debate on the subject, and give our own subjective views - one of the things I enjoy about the internet in general, and this forum in particular.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 12:00 PM
He was still imprisioned for the crime up until his release on 'compassionate grounds' two years ago

And it doesn't bother you that he spent all that time in jail without ever getting a fair trial?


And it doesn't bother you that people are calling for him to go BACK to jail, still without a fair trial?

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 12:02 PM
What would have been their reason for falsifying his medical documents to declare he only had a "couple of months to live"?

The only alternative was a retrial; and they were so terrified of having to hold one that they told him they would let him out if he dropped his appeal, but otherwise he'd have to stay in jail for at least another 12 months before the trial would be held.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 12:04 PM
Increased trade links between the UK and Libya.

The deal for increased trade links specifically excluded al-Megrahi.

cijababe
08-29-2011, 12:39 PM
He has been located at the home of his close relatives, and has been filmed wearing an oxygen mask, apparently in a coma. Who knows if this is staged or genuine?

x__orion
08-29-2011, 01:55 PM
The deal for increased trade links specifically excluded al-Megrahi.
On paper.

Tightcuntlover
08-29-2011, 02:11 PM
He was still imprisioned for the crime up until his release on 'compassionate grounds' two years ago - we were told he had only months to live and he was returned to his family to die.


And what fucking war criminal who was prime minister at the time presided over his release, albeit with the aid of Scotland's parliament...

Oh...hang on a minute.....Blair (Born in Edinburgh)....and Brown (son of a Scottish minister) are of Scot descent are they not?

Oh...and didn't Blair do a few deals with Ghaddafi the dead duck late in his prime ministership?

"Libya: Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in 'deal in the desert’
Tony Blair used his final foreign trip as prime minister to sign a confidential deal with Muammar Gaddafi to train Libyan special forces and supply him with Nato secrets."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8353501/Libya-Tony-Blair-agreed-to-train-Gaddafis-special-forces-in-deal-in-the-desert.html


Fucking war criminals....the whole lot of them.

x__orion
08-29-2011, 02:14 PM
And what fucking war criminal who was prime minister at the time presided over his release, albeit with the aid of Scotland's parliament...

Oh...hang on a minute.....Blair (Born in Edinburgh....and Brown (son of a Scottish minister) are of Scot descent are they not?

Oh...and didn't Blair do a few deals with Ghaddafi the dead duck late in his prime ministership

"Libya: Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in 'deal in the desert’
Tony Blair used his final foreign trip as prime minister to sign a confidential deal with Muammar Gaddafi to train Libyan special forces and supply him with Nato secrets."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8353501/Libya-Tony-Blair-agreed-to-train-Gaddafis-special-forces-in-deal-in-the-desert.html


Fucking war criminals....the whole lot of them.
Brown, Blair, and Salmond - three men I'd like to see swing.

Tightcuntlover
08-29-2011, 02:21 PM
Brown, Blair, and Salmond - three men I'd like to see swing.

It's tempting.....

but the slightest semblance of remorse on their part might just give me cause for leniency.

I might just spare their necks if that were the case.

Tightcuntlover
08-29-2011, 02:29 PM
Oh...and for those wondering....

al-megrahi.......

His release reminds me of all the teamsters bosses sitting in court in the film 'Casino'......

as in....all staged to fuck!!

NoTopNoCollar
08-29-2011, 04:00 PM
Hmmmm expensive hospital bed, oxygen, food drip, vitals monitor....but no doctor....a palace in Tripoli...no doctor.....staging his own death? Na...couldn't be...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/28/libya.lockerbie.bomber/index.html

imported__2355
08-29-2011, 04:28 PM
Gaaah ... my memory's starting to go.

Delta flight 188 is the one where the pilots were so distracted by something in the cockpit (they claim it was their laptops. I was thinking it may be more correct to suggest a stewardess doing a lapdance) that they forgot to check in with flight control for more than an hour.

As to this twerp's son claiming he's too sick to be arrested, we've heard that song from him before. Maybe Seal Team Six's medic would like to drop by and check his body temperature, and maybe bring it down to room temperature by prescribing a .40 caliber FMJ to his right ear.

baller16
08-29-2011, 04:29 PM
He was still imprisioned for the crime up until his release on 'compassionate grounds' two years ago - we were told he had only months to live and he was returned to his family to die.

As we can see now, that was clearly false. I believe he may be attempting to stage some kind of excuse to avoid re-capture, as with the fall of Gaddafi it is likely he will be re-arrested and imprisioned once more (deservedly so, in my opinion).

It is unlikely that he acted alone on blowing up the plane over Lockerbie, and it is an injustice that those others responsible for that crime are unlikely to ever be brought to justice. Didn't they find out that it was state-sponsored terrorism? I could've sworn Gaddafi admitted to it at one point. I could be wrong though.


Increased trade links between the UK and Libya.

The deal allowed Gaddafi to bring home his citizen, to much fanfare in Tripoli at the time, and the Scottish government shouldered the 'blame' allowing Parliament in London to tut-tut and tisk in order to appease the (quite rightly) outraged Americans. Bingo.

That's why he should've been tried in the US, as they were his target, not the Scottish or the UK.


Oh...and for those wondering....

al-megrahi.......

His release reminds me of all the teamsters bosses sitting in court in the film 'Casino'......

as in....all staged to fuck!! Great movie.

Tightcuntlover
08-29-2011, 04:49 PM
Great movie.

One of the best ever.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 06:35 PM
That's why he should've been tried in the US, as they were his target, not the Scottish or the UK.


It wouldn't have mattered if his target was Martians. A crime committed on, or over, Scottish soil can only be tried under Scottish law.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 06:36 PM
Didn't they find out that it was state-sponsored terrorism? I could've sworn Gaddafi admitted to it at one point.

The Libyan government admitted that it was Libyans who were responsible. I'm not sure they ever admitted that it was on government orders.


And since nobody has ever been fairly tried for it, we're never going to find out.

AZRIEL
08-29-2011, 06:43 PM
1542755

JayneyRedd
08-29-2011, 08:43 PM
And it doesn't bother you that he spent all that time in jail without ever getting a fair trial?


And it doesn't bother you that people are calling for him to go BACK to jail, still without a fair trial?

In so far as I am aware, he received a fair and just legal trial, and the evidence, both forensic & historical was overwhelming.
It was also tacitly admitted later, by Libyan Diplomatic sources, that it was officially sponsored by the Libyan Government.

It appeared that al-Megrahi was indeed the bomber and was rightly and justly convicted, sentenced and imprisoned.

One can only speculate as to the true reasons for his release a couple of years ago, but it appears to me, at least, that we in the UK 'sold-out' our duty to our American friends and allies by releasing a man who was guilty of a terrible terrorist atrocity aimed primarily at American citizens (if the bomb had exploded correctly later in the flight, over deep water, there would have been little chance of recovering any significant amounts of evidence from the ocean, and the only casualties would've been the passengers and crew of the aircraft).

I believe al-Megrahi was a pawn used in an international game of chess between the UK & the then encumbent Libyan leaders, and that he should serve the rest of his (legal) sentence in a British prison, even if that means he dies on British soil.

Too many lives ended on British soil as a result of his actions for the event to be forgotten.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 08:53 PM
In so far as I am aware, he received a fair and just legal trial

You're not very aware are you? The Scottish Appeal court ruled that trial unsafe years ago.

JayneyRedd
08-29-2011, 09:15 PM
You're not very aware are you? The Scottish Appeal court ruled that trial unsafe years ago.

If you know more about the subject than I do.... show me!

Where was his conviction overturned?

There were later doubts about some of the evidence given, or not given, during the trial, but nevertheless his imprisonment was legal and just up to the time of his release on the grounds that he only had a few months to live.

baller16
08-29-2011, 10:48 PM
It wouldn't have mattered if his target was Martians. A crime committed on, or over, Scottish soil can only be tried under Scottish law. That's bullshit. I'm not saying that you're incorrect, just so we're clear.

I'm saying that it's bullshit that it should be tried in Scotland. I would say that if it were a bunch of Scottish targeted in the US then the criminal would be tried in Scotland but as that has never happened, I can't really say that with full confidence.

We need to revise some of these laws.


The Libyan government admitted that it was Libyans who were responsible. I'm not sure they ever admitted that it was on government orders.


And since nobody has ever been fairly tried for it, we're never going to find out. To be fair, it's not easy to try a terrorist the same way you try any other criminal. I think we as a world are slowly getting there but considering this was in the late 80s, he's lucky he even got a trial at all.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 10:50 PM
To be fair, it's not easy to try a terrorist the same way you try any other criminal.

Actually it is. Politicians just don't want to see it happen.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 11:04 PM
If you know more about the subject than I do.... show me!

You could try looking at.... well, just about any news article about al-Megrahi from any of the last four years. Here's one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6246574.stm


Where was his conviction overturned?This is Scottish law. A ruling that the trial was unsafe doesn't overturn his conviction; it just means they have to hold the trial again under his appeal.

Which would have happened, if the Scots government hadn't made it a condition of his release on health grounds, that he drop the appeal! Evidently he considered that getting out of jail before he died and getting to see his family again, was more important to him than clearing his name.

baller16
08-29-2011, 11:04 PM
Actually it is. Politicians just don't want to see it happen. No, it really isn't. Terrorists are often part of a bigger network, so there's always going to be danger there. They want people to be too afraid to try them in courts and thus make them martyrs for their cause. That adds even more danger.

Then there's emotion, there's the fact that these people often operate well outside of the countries they target, there's the fact that their world is not the same as the typical criminal underground because they are all motivated and consider themselves more like military than criminals. Law enforcement basically owns the area they work in, and has plenty of advantages when dealing with regular criminals. That goes out the window with terrorists. It's a lot harder to make a case against them, even if you know for a fact they did it.

Back in the late 80s, before things like the current internet and all sorts of technological aspects, it was probably damn near impossible.

Heyesey
08-29-2011, 11:06 PM
That's bullshit. I'm not saying that you're incorrect, just so we're clear.


Understood.

It's a long standing legal principle that you cannot be convicted in country X, for a crime you committed in country Y. After all, what you did might not even BE A crime in country Y.

The USA are doing what they can to undermine that - they can extradite people from England now who haven't committed any crime at all, just because something they did WOULD have been a crime if they'd done it in America. On the other hand, people who take your viewpoint have set up a World Court which can try cross-national crimes - the USA is one of the very few countries which refuses to subscribe to it!

x__orion
08-30-2011, 12:24 AM
Understood.

It's a long standing legal principle that you cannot be convicted in country X, for a crime you committed in country Y. After all, what you did might not even BE A crime in country Y.

The USA are doing what they can to undermine that - they can extradite people from England now who haven't committed any crime at all, just because something they did WOULD have been a crime if they'd done it in America. On the other hand, people who take your viewpoint have set up a World Court which can try cross-national crimes - the USA is one of the very few countries which refuses to subscribe to it!
And so we arrive, again, at the scenario of a US national screwing a 16 year old girl in Hackney.

baller16
08-30-2011, 01:47 AM
Understood.

It's a long standing legal principle that you cannot be convicted in country X, for a crime you committed in country Y. After all, what you did might not even BE A crime in country Y.

The USA are doing what they can to undermine that - they can extradite people from England now who haven't committed any crime at all, just because something they did WOULD have been a crime if they'd done it in America. On the other hand, people who take your viewpoint have set up a World Court which can try cross-national crimes - the USA is one of the very few countries which refuses to subscribe to it! See, I don't agree with that. Only if you committed a crime in that country should you be tried for it... unless it's a situation like the PanAm bombing where it was clearly not at all directed at the Scottish or UK.

And I am well aware that the US is borderline retarded when it comes to things like this. You would think they would be all about a World Court.

Heyesey
08-30-2011, 03:15 AM
And I am well aware that the US is borderline retarded when it comes to things like this. You would think they would be all about a World Court.

They are, but they think it should be run by US judges and should only uphold US law, and that it should be banned from ever putting a US citizen on trial.


To be fair, the USA is a long long way from being the only hypocritical country in the world. It's probably not even the worst. But as the most powerful country, its hypocrisy is a lot more obvious than anyone else's.

baller16
08-30-2011, 03:29 AM
They are, but they think it should be run by US judges and should only uphold US law, and that it should be banned from ever putting a US citizen on trial.


To be fair, the USA is a long long way from being the only hypocritical country in the world. It's probably not even the worst. But as the most powerful country, its hypocrisy is a lot more obvious than anyone else's. I'm pretty sure the only cases that would actually require a World Court (such as the PanAm bombing) are cases where the crime committed is illegal in any country it may be committed in.

The only law that should not be upheld in a World Court is an unjust and barbaric one, like the form of "justice" handed out in certain regimes.

Fact is, if you commit a crime somewhere, you deserve to be tried for it, US citizen or not. If you knowingly steal something or do something else deliberately to somebody else, you should be tried for it.

Heyesey
08-30-2011, 11:20 AM
I'm pretty sure the only cases that would actually require a World Court (such as the PanAm bombing) are cases where the crime committed is illegal in any country it may be committed in.

It's mostly used for war crimes and dictators committing crimes against their own people.

As far as I can make out, the USA objection is based on the argument that anything the USA does is not a war crime because the USA did it. Which is roughly on a par with the idiots who try to say that the Brits carpet-bombing Dresden wasn't a war crime, but the Nazis carpet-bombing London was.