Lockerbie decision was the 'right one'

[IndianaGreen]

Lockerbie decision was the 'right one'

Monday 24 August 2009
by Paddy McGuffin

The former chief prosecutor who launched the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has hit back at the head of the FBI for his attack on the Scottish justice system in the wake of the Libyan's release.

FBI director Robert Mueller wrote to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill condemning the decision to free the terminally ill prisoner on compassionate grounds.

In the letter to Mr MacAskill, Mr Mueller wrote: "Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law."

"Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that, regardless of the quality of the investigation... the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of 'compassion'."

But Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, who was Scotland's lord advocate when the prosecution was launched against Mr Megrahi in November 1991, condemned the FBI chief's outspoken attack.

"As a former lord advocate, I'm quite appalled that the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, should have set his face so openly against Scotland," he said.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/britain/Lockerbie-decision-was-the-right-one

[MrModerate]

1. The decision to free the guy was, IMO, a poor one . . .

"Compassion" being directly related to trade relations is a little too naked for my tastes. But Mueller blew it, big time. If he wanted to shoot off his mouth, he should have shot off his mouth. Write an op-ed for the NYT or an article for the New York Review of Books. But send a letter to the Justice Secretary? Inappropriate and stupid.

I see way too much Bushian loose-cannonism in Mueller. A successor should be sought.

[imdjh]

2. "Quite frankly, it's none of his business." Fuck Henry McLeish

[theoldman]

3. He was set free so England could buy cheap oil.

Follow the money.

[Stingraypoindexter]

8. Not true

It is my opinion that this is the correct decision although I can understand some would disagree. However, I would strongly disagree with anyone that this decision was made for any reason other than those stated by Kenny McAskill.

The Scottish National Party would simply not take any actions that would benefit the Labour party (or England for that matter) while simultaneously harming their own reputation. The SNP (and the SNP alone) made this decision on their own for purely ethical and legal reasons despite knowing that it would be extremely decisive and it would have a political cost.

The head of the Labour party in Scotland has criticised the SNP for the decision and it would be beyond belief that the SNP would do a deal with the UK ruling party AND accept criticism from them for that decision.

[Daveparts still]

9. England Has Oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_and_gas_fields_of_the_North_Sea

[wolfgangmo]

10. Adjust your tinfoil

Or at least explain what you mean. Do some of your own heavy lifting and convince us. Supply some links. Something.

The man was a horrible person but he is terminal within months likely. Cut him loose. It's not about him, it's about who we are as a people.

The Scotish are apparently better than many of the yanks in my neighborhood.

[morningglory]

4. I was IT tech at a state prison. They do not want to do the paperwork when

an inmate dies on their watch. They train everyone to do CPR till the downed inmate is out in the ambulance to avoid the paperwork. They don't like to provide the expensive medical care for a person with cancer while they are dying. They prefer to let them go home to die, no matter how heinous the crime(s). It's just bidness, as republics would say.

[MrModerate]

5. In this case, I hardly think so.

Release of most inmates doesn't constitute an international incident.

[paulsby]

7. and extraordinary cases require extraordinary justification

this guy murdered 270 people. so, FUCK THE PAPERWORK. if that really is the reason (and i don't think it is), that's ridiculous.

we are going to justify setting a mass murderer free because paperwork sucks?

and let's not EVEN go into the "expensive medical care argument"

i mean, do you realize the irony.

if one could argue it's in society's best interests to release this scumbag because it will save healthcare costs, how different is that from the crap the rightwing is spewing about death panels, etc. iow, that govt. will make terrible immoral decisions in order to cut costs.

talk about the irony. i could cut it with a ladle.

heck, england could solicit money for his care for US citizens. we'd be glad to pay to keep that asshole in prison, if that's what it came down to.

really, though, in light of the current health care debate and (mis)information spewed about the NHS, said justification of cutting costs is insane

[Butch350]

11. It must be righteous MOE-FOE day...

I have never read anything about the Lockerbie bombing on here until Scottish authorities
released the bomber from jail to die of Cancer.

Isn't dying of CANCER a better sentence in the long run and more vindictive than a life
sentence?

Hey, the bastard is going to die horribly from CANCER - does it really fucking matter where
he dies.

[paulsby]

12. you are darn right it does

matter.

[paulsby]

6. mueller didn't "set his face so openly about scotland". crap article

scotland is not defined solely by the government in power.

europeans, americans etc. who criticized the bush admin for example, for any # of thinhs were not setting their face so openly against america.

they were advocating a position that the US policy was WRONG.

good for them.

and the same goes here, except the roles are reversed. good, goose, gander.

he can be "quite appalled" all he wants, mr former "lord advocate". i am just so sorry that his feelings are hurt that mueller DARE criticize a policy decision of the scottish government. how CHEEKY!