Brits swap terrorist for BP oil deal

[WBU ALUM]

London Times
August 30, 2009
Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

This is rather interesting ... I'm sure the families of those who were killed in this horrific act are pleased that the terrorist was returned to be able to live out his last days with family.

[Fawn]

Yes, this story is just kicking off on the TV this morning, great mate. It's all starting to come together now, rather shameful that a degree of pressure was placed on MacAskill by the Government in London on getting this terrorist moved home. London even sat on their hands and said sweet Fanny Adams while MacAskill and the Scottish National Party took flak. Not until it was safe to do so did the One Eyed Idiot express his displeasure at the home coming party in Libya. But I expect no less from New Labour, a rather selfish decision to make in an era when the Western World is supposed to be united in fighting terrorism.

[beer monkey]

And they stated it was on compassionate grounds....thus trying to make themselves look better as if they have some heart....all bull$h** it turns out then, bet theres a few uncomfortable people sat squriming in their seats today reading the Sunday Papers and watching the news.. phones ringing off the walls.....some even planning a holiday for a few weeks...

[Fawn]

Oh hang on, this is getting better.

Source: BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8229193.stm

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has denied that the release of the Lockerbie bomber had any links to UK trade talks with the Libyan government.
Letters leaked to a newspaper show UK ministers agreed to include him in a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of "overwhelming national interests".
Mr Salmond said Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds with no London involvement.
But the Tories and Lib Dems want an inquiry into UK dealings with Libya.

Was Alex in on it as well?

[beer monkey]

Mysterious goings on,...a bit like the missing keys and manager,.. the Cack will hit the phad-Lom soon........Stand Clear.!!

[BobHelm]

Sadly I found this headline all too believable.
The Conservatives calling for an inquiry is the pot calling the kettle black though. They would have done exactly the same if they had been in power.
A load of double dealing, lying, self serving, parasites that inhabit Parliament. I only continue to be surprised that anybody votes for any of them, or that anyone has genuine amazement when it turns out they have been lying their hides off...

[WBU ALUM]

Bob, would this decision have been made by Parliament or those within the executive branch of the UK?

[seymourbutts]

He is going to die soon anyway so why not make a buck or 2 out of it??? And you yanks dont need to be too critical here either!!! i understand that the majority of the dead were americans yet the biggest trading partner of Libya is ..... youve guessed it...USA and they have been for a long time!!1

i also understand that there is talk thet this guy is innocent (ish) and the evidence is based on a shopkeeper in malta who had been shown his photo many times previously to identifying him!! So the govt worried sh1tless he was almost certainly going to win his appeal!!!

[BobHelm]

Not the same as USA for certain WBU....
Major decisions can undoubtedly be made solely in The Prime Ministers Office, and, maybe, just discussed in a Cabinet Meeting. Only "Acts of Law" need to legally go through Parliament - the release of a prisoner (who ever he may be) is really ultimately in the remit of the "Home Secretary". Parliament can discuss an issue like this release & create a lot of 'media discussion' but actually have no rights to alter the decision.
If it was something that was completely abhorrent to the majority in Parliament then they could call for & vote on a "Motion of no confidence in the Government". If this succeeded then a general election would have to be called to elect a new Parliament & so, maybe Government.

[WBU ALUM]

Thanks for that explanation, Bob.

[Fawn]

Bob, would this decision have been made by Parliament or those within the executive branch of the UK?

Which decision, the release of the terrorist or the fact that the British government decided to place Megrahi on the prisoner exchange programme nearly two years ago?

The (Scottish) government said it had consulted widely before Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made his decision on applications for Megrahi's compassionate release or his transfer to a Libyan jail. He told a media conference on Thursday that he had rejected the application for a prisoner transfer.

Source: BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 197370.stm

Letters leaked to a newspaper show UK ministers agreed to include him in a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of "overwhelming national interests".....(T)he letter said: "I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.
"The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the UK, I have agreed that in this instance the [PTA] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."

Source: BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8229193.stm

There was a degree of discomfort during the Bliar years when decisions were made within his trusted group of advisors so circumventing the traditional Cabinet system. I believe that fell out of favour when the One Eyed Idiot moved into N.10.
I would like to think that Cabinet meetings are minuted to provide an audit trail so that Proles like me can see that government functions properly. My hunch is that a decision like the one above, where the release of a terrorist may influence business deals, would have undoubtedly been made outside of Cabinet. That no one in that mechanism could have thought about the effects that would have on the US or the victims' families is beyond belief and calls their judgement into question.[/color]

[rick]

The suggestion that he was released to help commercial deals is indeed distasteful. But, as has been said, still doubt that Megrahi did the deed. There are some stories that a radical Palestinian group, based in Syria, did the deed, at the request of the Iranian government. Reason: 6 months earlier a US navy cruiser had shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290. The Iranians promised revenge.

So, why was this suspicion (and more logical source) not thoroughly investigated? Because Iraq invaded Kuwait; USA required that Iraq's neighbours not be antagonised too much so that the first Gulf war could be successfully prosecuted. Kuwaits oil was worth more than one Panam plane and 270 victims. Libya was already isolated from the rest of the world so no-one cared if they took the blame. Maybe it was Libya, maybe Iran; will we ever really know?

[WBU ALUM]

So English courts and English justice are flawed?

[Fawn]

Who mentioned England, the crime occurred in Scotland.

[WBU ALUM]

WOW!

MSNBC pundits and a former Democrat Congressman (Ford - TN), discuss the ramifications of the US either signing off on the release or not being "outraged enough" over the release if not advised ahead of time. This type of questioning coming from MSNBC is a shock.

Video Link

This could be a whole new can of worms in this matter.