Straw: Megrahi included in PTA because of trade concerns
David Blackburn 4:03pm
One question that arises from the publication the Lockerbie documents is why Jack Straw suddenly decided against excluding al-Megrahi from the PTA? Straw justified his change of heart on the grounds of "overwhelming national interests", though trade and commercial interests were not a contributing factor in that calculation, a point he reiterated last weekend. But, in an interview with the Telegraph today, Straw contradicts himself:
'"Yes, it (trade deals with Libya) was a very big part of that (including al-Megrahi in the PTA). I'm unapologetic about that. Libya was a rogue state. We wanted to bring it back into the fold and trade is an essential part of it - and subsequently there was the BP deal."'
This revelation lends credence to Saif al-Islam's insistence that Megrahi's release or transfer was always a pre-condition of UK Libyan agreements, and undermines Straw's, David Miliband's, Lord Mandelson's and Gordon Brown's righteous indignation about being accused of 'double dealing'. Once again, there are more questions to answer about this whole case.
Previous
Tankus
September 5th, 2009 4:38pm Report this commentProbably cant remember what the official truth is.
It must be difficult for those doddering on in the twilight of their political careers, to keep track of all the spun positions. Particularly if the official position is written on A4 in big crayon, read in seconds , whereas the reality took months of continual negotiation over some very memorable dinners in exotic places , and neither bear any relation ship to each other.
What are you really gong to remember ?
Alan Douglas
September 5th, 2009 5:02pm Report this commentHaven't this whole mob been caught brazenly lying ? Or is this a serious matter only if id is "to the House". Perhaps they should remember that as the "House" they are there onlyas ouor servants ?
Alan Douglas
Philip Walker
September 5th, 2009 5:25pm Report this commentWhat I really don't get about this is why the government is allowed to get away with the line that including al-Megrahi in the PTA did not give Edinburgh any sort of lead on London's thinking on the matter. Plainly, if London was happy to consider the possibility of al-Megrahi leaving the UK under the PTA, then Edinburgh had received a signal that London would not object to sending him home. Granted, the PTA was not used in the end, but it still gave Edinburgh a signal of the way London viewed the situation.
Ivy Eileen
September 5th, 2009 5:56pm Report this comment...er, please remind me - which aspect of the matter did the Dark Lord of Smear & Induendo regard as "offensive" ?
Sophia Pangloss
September 5th, 2009 6:05pm Report this commentThe question I would love to ask is, what would the UK govt have done if Magrahi hadn't been diagnosed with terminal cancer? The SNP made their position clear, that they would not agree to the PTA, and were happy to have Magrahi excepted. As of now, the SNP's actions have been honest and consistent, both with the Scottish people, and with Scots law.
Derek
September 6th, 2009 12:51am Report this commentMeanwhile, the editor of the Jerusalem Post has expressed in well-argued fashion grave doubts that Megrahi or the Libyans were behind the Lockerbie bombing
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1251804485268&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).
He does not mention rogue CIA elements,which is no doubt politic, but leans towards Syrian involvement in support of a cell of "Palestinian" terrorists.
For most of the Left and the muslim world, together with segments of liberal opinion and the non-thinking,the "Palestinians" are victims who can do no wrong and their terrorist masters and allies, who visit such misery on both them and the world in the name of Islam, respectable players on the international stage.
President Obama and other western governments are basing their policy in the Middle East on that false perception and on the appeasement which derives from it - or is it the false perception which derives from the will to appease?
What is at risk for the British government in this case therefore is that majority opinion may conclude that the the vital national interests of Great Britain and Israel are one and the same.
Follow the Camel Corps, then - mum's the word!
We CHers at least are not so easily led by the nose up the garden path where we might find ourselves barking up the wrong tree with the wool pulled over our eyes.
Anne Wotana Kaye
September 6th, 2009 12:42pm Report this commentA truly well named person. The definition of a 'man of straw' is: a puppet; one who is controlled by others; also, one who is not responsible pecuniarily.
an effigy formed by stuffing the garments of a man with straw; hence, a fictitious person; an irresponsible person; a puppet.
Actually the physical appearance of this ghastly minister always reminds me of a rocking horse. The flared nostrils, and the inane way he rocks his head when his Master speaks in the House of Commons. Oh, please Lord, let us be rid of these evil men soon. I say evil, because foolish people are more dangerous than the plain wicked. With their foolishness, egoism and greed, they are tearing apart the fabric of civilisation.
Peter Stroud
September 6th, 2009 12:52pm Report this commentI think we all knew trade was involved in the Megahi business when the Queen of lies said “It’s not only completely wrong to make such a suggestion it’s also quite offensive.” When the connection was suggested.
anne allan
September 6th, 2009 2:07pm Report this commentI'm now totally confused - why was al-Magrahi a member of a Parent Teacher Association?
Back to top