Gordon Brown and David Miliband supported Lockerbie bomber

#1
Surprise, surprise.

Official minutes of meetings held between the SNP executive and Libya confirm that both Gordon Brown and David Miliband sympathised with the Libyan case, and agreed that they would NOT want Megrahi to die in a British jail. When the Libyans pressed the point that UK/Libyan relations would be badly damaged if he wasn't returned to Libya to die, they agreed it would be better if he was returned, although with the caveat that only the Scottish government could release him to the Libyans, and that it was their decision at the end of the day.

I said a few days ago that it was obvious why Gordon Brown refused to give an opinion as to the release of Megrahi. He wanted to cook up a trade deal with the Libyans, and allowed Megrahi to be used as a bargaining chip.

The bonus for Labour was that the SNP would have to make the decision to release him, and thus, the axe would fall on them, not Labour . . . . or so they thought.

On the one hand, everyone wants to get stuck into trading with Libya, what with their oil/gas and their coming out of pariah status, so, deals had to be done. I don't think that even I would have a pop at Broon for doing his best for pushing UK trade abroad, BUT, and this is the measure of the man; he tried to pull a fast one; he misjudged (once again) the mood of the people and our allies and he monumentally failed (once again) to be a: successful in his gambit, b: to come out blameless, c: to get away with it when the sh!t hit the fan. To allow the release of Megrahi to be a bargaining chip might make a few quid for oil and gas companies, but the cost to our international relationships (far more important ones than Libya) is going to outweigh it, and the disgrace done to the long-suffering families of the victims carries no price tag.

He's managed to kark all over US/UK relations, he's managed to horribly upset all those who lost loved ones by failing to condemn the release, and he, through his bad manipulation of the Scottish Executive, has managed to hand a gold-plated victory to the Libyans, not to mention getting egg all over the faces of the Jocks and the British.

As for the SNP and the Scottish Executive: You got used, you got played, and you should learn from the experience, as well as apologising profusely to the families of the dead. You are a disgrace.

Notwithstanding this: Megrahi may well be proved innocent in the longer term, but this was not the basis of his release - and nor for that matter was compassion. It was trade, pure and simple.

I would not for one minute suppose that 'proving' the innocence of Megrahi would be rather politically expedient for Labour and the SNP right now, and that it might happen as a result, irrespective of the facts of the case.

In the interests of fairness and equality, and inclusiveness (for the hand-wringing liberal PC tubes on here), and to forestall the left-wing cretins who demand links, deny the story, here you go:

Telegraph Article

BBC Link

Times Link

Daily Mail Link

Guardian Link
 
#3
Extremist said:
Surprise, surprise.


To allow the release of Megrahi to be a bargaining chip might make a few quid for oil and gas companies, but the cost to our international relationships (far more important ones than Libya) is going to outweigh it, and the disgrace done to the long-suffering families of the victims carries no price tag.

He's managed to kark all over US/UK relations, getting egg all over the faces of the Jocks and the British.

As for the SNP and the Scottish Executive: You got used, you got played, and you should learn from the experience, as well as apologising profusely to the families of the dead. You are a disgrace.

Notwithstanding this: Megrahi may well be proved innocent in the longer term, but this was not the basis of his release - and nor for that matter was compassion. It was trade, pure and simple.

I would not for one minute suppose that 'proving' the innocence of Megrahi would be rather politically expedient for Labour and the SNP right now, and that it might happen as a result, irrespective of the facts of the case.

Telegraph Article

And pray, what price to get a couple of Us journo types freed from N Korea, added to the price of freeing swimmers from Burma, international relations my ass
 
#4
finnjim said:
Extremist said:
Surprise, surprise.


To allow the release of Megrahi to be a bargaining chip might make a few quid for oil and gas companies, but the cost to our international relationships (far more important ones than Libya) is going to outweigh it, and the disgrace done to the long-suffering families of the victims carries no price tag.

He's managed to kark all over US/UK relations, getting egg all over the faces of the Jocks and the British.

As for the SNP and the Scottish Executive: You got used, you got played, and you should learn from the experience, as well as apologising profusely to the families of the dead. You are a disgrace.

Notwithstanding this: Megrahi may well be proved innocent in the longer term, but this was not the basis of his release - and nor for that matter was compassion. It was trade, pure and simple.

I would not for one minute suppose that 'proving' the innocence of Megrahi would be rather politically expedient for Labour and the SNP right now, and that it might happen as a result, irrespective of the facts of the case.

Telegraph Article

And pray, what price to get a couple of Us journo types freed from N Korea, added to the price of freeing swimmers from Burma, international relations my ass
They weren't alleged to have killed hundreds of people, to be fair. I have no doubt that the US did a back-room deal or two to get their people back, and that's OK, because we would and should do the same if necessary. Releasing convicted (however tenuously) mass-murderers for a handful of silver is another matter. Unfortunately, Labour has form. Megrahi is not the first terrorist murderer to be set free before his time, with Labour playing a part.
 
#5
As for the SNP and the Scottish Executive: You got used, you got played, and you should learn from the experience, as well as apologising profusely to the families of the dead. You are a disgrace.
Have you read the correspondence from the Scottish Government?
 
#6
Rafair7643 said:
As for the SNP and the Scottish Executive: You got used, you got played, and you should learn from the experience, as well as apologising profusely to the families of the dead. You are a disgrace.
Have you read the correspondence from the Scottish Government?
The bit where they said they were a 'compassionate people' and how it was absolutely right, considering the bloke was dying, that he be released to the Libyans?
 
#7
As I understand it, some of the UK families who lost people in Lockerbie also think the show trial was exactly that and that the fall guy was in fact convicted. Private Eye has had stuff about this in the past.
 
#8
Extremist said:
The bit where they said they were a 'compassionate people' and how it was absolutely right, considering the bloke was dying, that he be released to the Libyans?
Nope, the actual letters from Salmond to Straw. Clearly Straw wanted Megrahi released on PTA, which the Scottish Government rejected, because they wanted nothing to do with any wee deals done by Blair and Broon.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie/correspondence/UK-gov
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#9
Extremist said:
He's managed to kark all over US/UK relations, he's managed to horribly upset all those who lost loved ones by failing to condemn the release, and he, through his bad manipulation of the Scottish Executive, has managed to hand a gold-plated victory to the Libyans, not to mention getting egg all over the faces of the Jocks and the British.
All of those who lost loved ones? I beg to differ. Dr Swire's letter to the Telegraph today, one with which I wholeheartedly agree:

SIR – Now he’s gone, he’s gone. Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, was thoughtful enough to listen to some of the UK relatives of those who died at Lockerbie before he made his decision.

I thought him a man of integrity and urged him, on humanitarian and Christian grounds to release the dying man under “compassionate release”, not “prisoner transfer”, which I saw as a political trap.
Unlike prisoner transfer, this would also have allowed Megrahi’s appeal to continue, had the prisoner not withdrawn it. Megrahi had always told me that he was determined to clear his name before going home, but under the shadow of death, who can blame him for changing his mind, uncertain as he was that he could trust his captors?

After eight years in jail, his appeal had barely started, and at a snail’s pace even then, although the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had decided his trial might have been a miscarriage of justice.
Whatever the unsavoury concealment of the “deal in the desert” may mean, there are a number of us who believe that wresting something good out of something as evil as Lockerbie is the way to go. Surely improving commercial ties is good for the citizens of both countries. That is what good politicians do.
A far more important question is: was he guilty anyway? Many believe he was not. The UN’s appointed observer, Professor Hans Kochler, has described the verdict as a parody of justice. If Megrahi was not guilty, why was he prosecuted and the real perpetrators ignored?
As the father of a a daughter, Flora, murdered at Lockerbie, I think that we, the UK relatives, need answers to the following questions. Who was behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher government of the day ignore all the warnings they got before Lockerbie? Why did they refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of this inquiry?

Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in (before the Lockerbie bombing) concealed for 12 years so that the trial court did not hear of it until after the verdict? Why were we constantly subjected to the ignominy of being denied the truth as to why our families were not protected in what even our crippled Fatal Accident Inquiry (crippled because it, too, was denied the information about Heathrow) found to have been a preventable disaster?

The details of Megrahi’s release surely are of little significance compared with these questions.

Dr Jim Swire
Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire
 
#10
Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, was thoughtful enough to listen to some of the UK relatives of those who died at Lockerbie before he made his decision
He consulted with relatives from all nations involved as well as UK and US Governments.

We'll never know what the US consultations entailed, because the US Government has declined to allow publication of the correspondence.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie/correspondence/us-gov

Obviously they want to maintain the stance that it was done without their knowledge.
 
#11
RAFAIR - thanks for the link to the letters written by Alex Salmond to the various bods in the Labour government. It looks very much like I was mistaken on that score. Alex Salmond appears to have asked repeatedly that Megrahi be excluded from any PTA, as agreed in the UN resolution between the US, UK and Libya.

It would seem that at the start of the negotiations, Labour agreed, but as it went on, Labour started to speak of 'overwhelming national interest', judging by the published missives of the Scottish Executive, and then a complete climb-down on the agreement reached in the UN - ie: Labour opened the doors to an eventual transfer.

The question at the end of the day is why did the SNP release him? Was it purely compassionate?

I see your point there Sixty, and thanks for the letter - I allude to the guilt or innocence of Megrahi at the end of my first post, in which I a: question his conviction, and b: point out that the decision to release him was not based on proven innocence at all.

Could it be then that the SNP saw the conviction of Megrahi as a convenient stitch-up on the basis of highly suspect evidence provided by the US, and on that basis released him (in the overwhelming national interest of course)?
 
#12
I suppose Miliband has form, he admires terrorists when they fight for a cause agreeable to him. As for Brown he is a compulsive liar, so no surprises that he blamed it all on the SNP. Let's hope he loses his seat as well as his position at the next election. Schoolboy terrorist sympathiser Miliband, has few friends, if any, left in the Labour Party. He should enjoy his free cocktail parties whilst he is still getting the invites.
 
#13
Extremist said:
The question at the end of the day is why did the SNP release him? Was it purely compassionate?
I believe it was indeed. I noticed that some have criticised McKaskill for visiting Megrahi whilst he was in jail.

Personally, if I was being asked to make such a decision, I'd want to view the guy "face to face" before making it.

A lot has also been made by the BBC, about the "man in the street" being against the release, yet when you check independent sources, that does not seem to be the case;

Paper For Against

Dumfries & Galloway Standard 88.4% 11.6%
Annandale Observer (Lockerbie) 73% 27%
Perthshire Advertiser 90.6% 8.4%
Ross-shire Journal 87% 13%
Scotsman 58% 42%
Lennox Herald 80.5% 19.5%
Oban Times 89% 11%
Kilmarnock Standard 72.5% 28.5%
East Kilbride News 71% 29%
West Lothian Courier 75.2% 24.8%
Hamilton Advertiser 60.3% 39.7%
Airdrie Advertiser 56.1% 43.9%
Wishaw Press 83% 17%
Paisley Daily Express 62.23% 37.7%

(Figures pinched from another forum)
 
#14
Not surprised really, millband was on the radio the other week supporting terrorism or saying that if they had a validate point to make via terrorism he thought it was fair game? tw@t
 
#15
Ignoring Rafair7643's astonishing and relentless Arlsikhan of the Scottish position regardless of the facts, it is nevertheless worth noting that it was the hapless Bill Rammell, Armed Forces Minister, who acted as the useless go-between in this affair.

God help us all - the two most worthless ministers in government (Ainsworth and Rammell) now work in the same Ministry.
 
#16
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Ignoring Rafair7643's astonishing and relentless Arlsikhan of the Scottish position regardless of the facts.
It would be good manners to actually post those "facts" which I have so foolishly disregarded :roll:
 
#17
Rafair7643 said:
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Ignoring Rafair7643's astonishing and relentless Arlsikhan of the Scottish position regardless of the facts.
It would be good manners to actually post those "facts" which I have so foolishly disregarded :roll:
Come on you don't want the facts to get in the way of a good story :wink:
 
#18
johnboyzzz said:
Rafair7643 said:
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Ignoring Rafair7643's astonishing and relentless Arlsikhan of the Scottish position regardless of the facts.
It would be good manners to actually post those "facts" which I have so foolishly disregarded :roll:
Come on you don't want the facts to get in the way of a good story :wink:
Well, the fact is that the Scottish decision was based entirely on intelligence briefs put out by 5 and 6 and by political briefings issued by Downing St, the DTi and Mandy's business chums.

The thought that MacAskill had any independence of action is a joke.

Which is why, ages ago and on another thread, I questioned the point of devolution in the first place - anyone who believes that Scotland is truly devolved from Westminster, especially when it comes to delicate foreign affairs is an idiot.
 
#19
King_of_the_Burpas said:
johnboyzzz said:
Rafair7643 said:
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Ignoring Rafair7643's astonishing and relentless Arlsikhan of the Scottish position regardless of the facts.
It would be good manners to actually post those "facts" which I have so foolishly disregarded :roll:
Come on you don't want the facts to get in the way of a good story :wink:
Well, the fact is that the Scottish decision was based entirely on intelligence briefs put out by 5 and 6 and by political briefings issued by Downing St, the DTi and Mandy's business chums.

The thought that MacAskill had any independence of action is a joke.

Which is why, ages ago and on another thread, I questioned the point of devolution in the first place - anyone who believes that Scotland is truly devolved from Westminster, especially when it comes to delicate foreign affairs is an idiot.
And where is your evidence of this?
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#20
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Well, the fact is that the Scottish decision was based entirely on intelligence briefs put out by 5 and 6 and by political briefings issued by Downing St, the DTi and Mandy's business chums.

The thought that MacAskill had any independence of action is a joke.

Which is why, ages ago and on another thread, I questioned the point of devolution in the first place - anyone who believes that Scotland is truly devolved from Westminster, especially when it comes to delicate foreign affairs is an idiot.

Well certainly someone on this thread has revealed himself to be an idiot. Sadly, for you if not the rest of us, it's you.

The political briefings were very largely concerned with the PTA which MacAskill rejected. You're also rather naive if you don't quite understand the level of visceral hatred that the SNP reserve for Labour and vice versa.

Oh, and foreign policy is a reserved power and therefore not something relevant to a discussion on devolution. The Scottish legal system however is not.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads