US double talk on Megrahi

charles hercock

Good on Kenny to keep plugging the line of US government forbidding disclosure in the BBC interview last night despite the hectoring of the dreadful interviewer
Keep at this and the 4 Senators will soon pipe down

charles hercock

Alex Salmond should be encourage by Dave and Will Hague to release the transcripts

Dimoto

It all depends whom the Deputy Ambassador was speaking for, presumably the administration (i.e. the State Dept).
He was surely not speaking for a group of rabble rousing, opportunist senators with a special interest in destroying BP, for the benefit of Exxon.

Bob

True. Remember folks that US intelligence documents blamed Iran and would of been produced on appeal (The Times, Aug 2009). The elite know this, so it's all nonsense.

"Please drop the appeal to save face Megrahi", - USA. It is thought Libya instructed Megrahi to do this.

You'd of thought Scotland was behind bombing the way some are carrying on. You should see the "Scottish" media, like BBC Scotland, which needs disbanded or fully devolved to Scotland.

David Alexander

David, you have provided a link to a Sunday Times piece which is unavailable to anyone but the twelve people who have opted to pay an online subscription.

Ismael Hayden

It would be a disgrace if the Scottish government even considered answering to that silly reactionist kangaroo court, I doubt the Iraq enquiry will be hearing personally from any high ranking american officials George Bush maybe?
An as much as I hate lobbying by big business, the yanks invented it, they passed a law this year that gave corporations the same status as individuals, allowing unlimited spending to influence politics through campaign adds etc. during campaigns. They're probably being lobbied by a different oil company now to go after BP so that the share price plummets and they can buy it up for a pittance.

Frank P

It's all about November.

M.Hough

the u.s.senate should stop trying to prove that the release of megrahi was based on u.s.style business methods and accept the simple truth that the scottish government did it simply because they could and demonstrate their independance internationaly.

AndyLeeds

One is hardly surprised. The American's have always had a double standard when it comes to terrorism - lets remember how so many of them contributed to the IRA and how their judges wouldn't extradite members of the IRA.

So to the currect business some of us do not agree that al-Megrahi should have been freed. He ought to have died in Prison (preferably after meeting Mr Pierrpoint), but his release should not have been a matter for the Scottish Executive or what you want to call it. It should have been referred to London and personally I would make the release of all convicted murderers a matter for a reprieve committee of the Privy Council. There is one very important point. While the majority of the victims were Americans this crime happened to occur over UK territory. The process of what happened to the murderer was a matter for the UK and it is for the UK to decide not puffed up over important nobodies in Washington. They should not be interferring in UK affairs. Damn rude and damned arrogant.

TomTom

Time for the US Senate to hold a serious inquiry into the Lockerbie Bombing with subpoena for DEA and CIA agents and release of papers from Bush I Presidency with respect to deals made with Syria at the time of the Iraq-Kuwait War

charles hercock

David Alexander

You could buy the paper
Remember "Sunday isn't Sunday without the Sunday Times"
You will also read that BP is going to get rid of the CEO who will get his life back,which is more than those killed on the rig.But perhaps then the 4 Senators will shut up

Peter

Andyleeds doesn't seem to be aware that the independence of Scot's law is guaranteed by the Treaties of Union. The role played by the Justice secretary would pre-devolution have been performed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Not an English MP or the westminster parliament.

Just becasue halfwit americans don't know any history before 1776 doesn't mean you should be ignorant of the creation of your own state.

charles hercock

Frank P

No it is as always in the US about Money

Drive down BP further and let Exoon take over at bargain rates

Simon Stephenson

David Alexander : 11.52am

"David, you have provided a link to a Sunday Times piece which is unavailable to anyone but the twelve people who have opted to pay an online subscription."

As a matter of interest, the latest Private Eye gives a figure of 33% for the proportion of The Times online audience which remains after the introduction of the paywall. If this figure is anywhere near correct, and is maintained, I suggest that the days of free newspaper websites are coming to an end.

yank

Ismael Hayden: "An as much as I hate lobbying by big business, the yanks invented it, they passed a law this year that gave corporations the same status as individuals, allowing unlimited spending to influence politics through campaign adds etc. during campaigns."

.

.

Well, to be precise, it was a Supreme Court decision, Mr. Hayden. The court affirmed that individuals have a right to band together and make their individual voices as one, as a corporation. The case in question was of a pro-life organization, a non-profit, which made a television presentation promoting their views. The court agreed that the timing, content and payment of their speech could not be abridged by the Congress.

I agree with the court, of course. We truly have free speech here, and better that it should stay that way, even if it means some ne'er-do-wells get their say.

Corporations are outlawed from direct contributions to politicians (although that never stopped BP's execs from indirect contributions to Obama and his gang, as we know), but can speak their piece on the issues, as in BP's constant TV yammering about being "Beyond Petroleum", and pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the global warming kookiness, even as they maneuvered to advantage in their REAL business, while working outside industry standards for safety and exploration in same.

BP got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and I have no sympathy for them. Now, they're under attack from obtuse angles such as this Megrahi thing, which few are concerned with here, but they have but to look in the mirror for the culprit in their difficulties. And they can always look at their autographed pictures with Obama, for solace.

Whining because a multinational corporation is getting hammered is a loser's game. If they are turned upside down, pockets shook empty, it's good enough for them. They earned it. Speaking of Exxon, you don't see them pretending to be anything but a dirty old petro outfit, incinerating the atmosphere like any good capitalist pig is supposed to do. BP forgot their core business and market, and lost focus. Tough luck, suckers.

Verity

David Alexander - that many? I hadn't realised their dreary, obtusive campaign had been such a roaring success.

Frank P - You're right. But nothing can help Obama in November. Even if he got his own way over dog turd and medical miracle Megrahi, it wouldn't mean diddly. American voters notoriously lack interest in foreign affairs, especially at election time. American elections are won and lost on domestic issues.

Perhaps Gadaffi could find role for him in Libya in 2012. He's a muslim, after all, so it wouldn't be haram.

Beryl

Well, I don't see why the US should think they have carte blanche to interfere in the affairs of the UK anyway, I know they think they are big and important, I think they are just rather ignorant.

AndyLeeds

Peter,
It is a pity you didn't read what I wrote. I am well aware of the history of the United Kingdom. I am not certain that pre-devolution the matter would have been for the Secretary of State for Scotland - certainly not alone. There have been periods when this office did not exist. What I actually said was that ALL convicted murderers their release should be a matter for the Privy Council, exercised through a committee. In the case of al-Megrahi the Scottish Justice Secretary had the power to release him as it was a devolved matter. He had no power nor authority to allow al-Megrahi to leave our shores. That - border control - is a retained matter. Whatever the technicalities maybe the plain fact is this is an internal United Kingdom matter and it is improper for the United States Senate to behave as it is doing. It is none of their damn business.

Hysteria

Verity - I agree 33% seems high (but I have no technical basis for a challenge)

Mind you - Private Eye has a subscription site, so they, like any other business, would love that figure to be true.

If many sites switched ny suspicion is that other media services would crop up though........

porkbelly

The blue-painted tribesmen appear to be on the warpath today - watch out Johnny Foreigner! Apparently the dreadful Yanks have had the effrontery to complain when a killer who murdered several hundred of their (historically ignorant and ill-educated) countrymen is set free by a supposed ally. The cheek! How dare they imagine that it is any of their business! And besides, everyone sells out their friends for money, so why complain? After all the Yanks invented the manipulation of foreign policy for capitalist gain (they being so ignorant of history they've never even heard of the British East India Company or the Opium Wars, poor fools).

My my...all this to defend the honor of BP and Gordon Brown, not to mention a pack of shifty Scottish idiots. Are they really worth the nationalist apoplexy being vented here? Frankly I would have though Spectator readers would be glad to see the lot of them roasting in hell.

And by the way, can someone explain why it is a shocking affront to national pride to give the Americans an inch on this, but perfectly acceptable to kowtow to a loony Michael Jackson impersonator who lives in a tent?

ndm

David Dameron's performance in this issue has been extremely disappointing. He should have been forthright that no British politician or official will ever be questioned on this issue by any American congressional committee.

Simon Stephenson

Hysteria : 6.50pm

I think you'll find that Verity was referring to David Alexander's figure of 12, rather than mine of 33%.

I've been reading Private Eye since the days of Reginald Maudling, John Poulson and the Real Estate Fund of America, and I think I can say quite honestly that I have never come across anything it's printed that could be labelled as self-servingly dishonest. Sure, it's made mistakes, most notably with its stance over the MMR vaccine, but these are innocent, if perhaps negligent, errors, not deliberate falsehoods.

Why do publications insist that on-line purchases must be in basketfulls? Is it because readers are deemed to be too canny to be given the opportunity to pay by the article? For me, there isn't enough in The Times to warrant paying a subscription, but I'd willingly pay a few pence each time to read Matthew Parris's articles, and Hugh McIlvanney on Sundays. Likewise the other papers - the FT, Independent, even the Grauniad - there's always the odd contributor I'm keen to read, although if the Telegraph went subscription I expect I'd feel obliged to take one out.

It's the same with television. Why not pay per view? It would certanly make some of the channels brush up their act if they knew that each pound of their income was the result of a conscious decision, rather than part of a prepayment for a package 95% of which is stuff the consumer doesn't really want.

Richard of Moscow

Porkbelly, spot on. Although the people behind the British East India Company and the Opium Wars were wonderfully crafty empire buildres, whereas these senators are merely insignificant, limp-wristed muppets trying some pre-election posturing, and are so hopeless at it they've making the 'shifty Scottish idiots' look good in comparison.

George Laird

Dear All

You have to feel sorry for Noa Zrk on here now that the Americans have said:

“Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”

Seems the Americans agree with the George Laird position and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that my argument regarding fairness and equality exhibited in this case would be accepted by them.

If only Noa Zrk had hung on and knew the American position, it would have stopped him waffling on.

However, a good waffle can be most entertaining on here!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

yank

Mr. Laird, as much as I hate to interrupt a good self back patting, you are being a bit presumptuous if you think the American people would ever be in favor of the release of this guy. I doubt we are, any more than the bulk of those over there on the pile of rocks. Put it to a vote, either place, and not hard to imagine how it'd turn out.

That doesn't mean it's worth arguing over now, but first things first. You best convince your current government of the merits of your case, because it doesn't look like you have.

George Laird

Dear Yank

“Mr. Laird, as much as I hate to interrupt a good self back patting, you are being a bit presumptuous if you think the American people would ever be in favor of the release of this guy”.

You misunderstand; I never said that American people would be in favour of release.

The release isn’t subject to a public vote anyway.

Justice by the mob isn’t justice at all.

“I doubt we are, any more than the bulk of those over there on the pile of rocks”.

Pile of rocks?

“Put it to a vote, either place, and not hard to imagine how it'd turn out.
That doesn't mean it's worth arguing over now, but first things first. You best convince your current government of the merits of your case, because it doesn't look like you have”.

There are two governments, something which Americans can’t get their heads around.

One is in Westminster and one in Holyrood.

The Holyrood one has control of the Scottish justice system.

Megrahi was released in accordance with the law and subject to due process.

If he represented a threat to the public, he wouldn’t have been released.

The Scottish Government in deciding the case went on the information provided by medical experts.

Medicine isn’t an exact science.

Megrahi wasn’t freed because of trade.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Noa Zrk

George Laird

"LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland.. “would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi’s release”.".

I'm surprised you consider the conditional equivocations of the Deputy US Ambassador representative of the views of the US Congress and the Senate. In the event he was released and, ultra vires, the Justice Secretary's powers allowed to go to Libya.

The relatives of the 270 he was convicted of murdering rightly hold the UK accountable for an act of outstanding moral cowardice.

And in answer to your previous question. I do not read the Glasgow dailies. Outside of Glasgow few do.

Edward in the USA

In the end, it is all about money. Blood for money. The blood of 270 people for libyan oil contracts.

The british are as arrogant as the Germans. Except the british don't generally have the murderous trait the Germans have.

SHAME on the uk/scotland, the lot of 'em. This isn't over. You'll be uncomfortable for a long time. Get used to it.

E Hart

The al-Megrahi case, when you look into it, has all the qualities associated with a murky stitch-up characterised by dubious witness testimonies and payments to the same and evidence withheld from the jury. The UN special observer at the trial, Hans Koechler, was in no doubt that the conviction of al-Megrahi represented a miscarriage of justice. He even went so far as to say that "only a child would have convicted al-Megraphi on the evidence". Scotland's leading legal authority at the time, Emeritus Professor of Law at Edinburgh, Robert Black said to the effect that he didn't know any legal professional outside of the case who would have convicted on the basis of the evidence presented to the court.
It seems that the desire for a scapegoat trumps justice especially if in the presentation of that evidence the US and the UK governments were to be put in the position of having to reveal some uncomfortable truths.
The media is playing with half the deck and it shows. As always it is happy to mouth the party line (with a few exceptions)and is mindful not to be anything less than wholly and sycophantically partial.

E Hart

@Edward in the USA

For justice to mean anything it has to be right and true. If the truth ever surfaces in this case none of us is going to be sitting too pretty.

You need to look into this matter a little more closely that a cursory glance at present orthodoxy and the unremitting parroting of righteous indignation that accompanies it.
There are many in the legal profession and elsewhere who believe that the al-Megrahi verdict was to justice what painting by numbers is to art.

Edward in the USA

By all means, if megrahi had evidence that proves his innocence, his representatives should prove their case. No closed door tribunals.

But FIRST he has to prove his innocence BEFORE he is released. Will megrahi and gadaffi be looking for the REAL murderers too as OJ Simpson says he is?

And the sight of the heroes welcome home and waving saltire in libya, must have brought tears to the eyes of the families of the 270 victims of the bombing of Pan Am 103 - but not tears of joy.

Isn't it odd that BP was granted oil contracts in libya? Coincidence?