New info coming out regarding US knowledge about release of Lockerbie bomber

[Linflas]

A story in The Suday Times of London indicates that the Obama administration might not have been as surprised by the release of al-Megrahi as they first indicated. If this turns out to be accurate then the Obama is going to have some serious explaining to do. The Sunday Times is a subscription site so the links are from an Australian news site referencing the Sunday Times story.

THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "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."

Story link

 

[Craig234]

A story in The Suday Times of London indicates that the Obama administration might not have been as surprised by the release of al-Megrahi as they first indicated. If this turns out to be accurate then the Obama is going to have some serious explaining to do. The Sunday Times is a subscription site so the links are from an Australian news site referencing the Sunday Times story.



Story link

Welcome to corporatist governments - but in this case, the Obama adminstration did say its first preference was to keep him jailed in Scotland, not released at all.

I can't tell from the article why the government said if he would be released, it preferred not to have him imprisoned in Libya.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why would that diplomat say ANYTHING about "compassionate release" as an alternative? The only two options are keep him in Scotland or send him to Libya.

 

[StageLeft]

Maybe I need to be beaten until I understand but why couldn't they have just kept him in jail in Scotland?

Forgive me my ignorance but I was under the impression he was sentenced to enough time that there's no way he'd ever have lived out his sentence. So then why let a guy who's essentially sentenced to die in prison free because, well, oh snap he's going to die in prison?

Many old people have crappy ailments in their last days; they don't just go from being fine to dead, and none of them are let out.

The hell?

 

[Moonbeam]

Was this a reaction to the surprise or a reason for doubting it? When did the government learn of the release and when, if ever, did they express surprise?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Maybe I need to be beaten until I understand but why couldn't they have just kept him in jail in Scotland?

Forgive me my ignorance but I was under the impression he was sentenced to enough time that there's no way he'd ever have lived out his sentence. So then why let a guy who's essentially sentenced to die in prison free because, well, oh snap he's going to die in prison?

Many old people have crappy ailments in their last days; they don't just go from being fine to dead, and none of them are let out.

The hell?

$$$
B(ristish)P stood to get some pretty big contracts with Libia if the guy was released.
Maybe the oil leak in the Gulf was planned by the Obama Admin to get the money from BP that BP got from Libia? <Tin-foil hats on>

Obama:It was Bush's fault.

 

[Athena]

Agreed. I don't understand why he was the object of any compassion at all.

 

[Craig234]

Maybe I need to be beaten until I understand but why couldn't they have just kept him in jail in Scotland?

Forgive me my ignorance but I was under the impression he was sentenced to enough time that there's no way he'd ever have lived out his sentence. So then why let a guy who's essentially sentenced to die in prison free because, well, oh snap he's going to die in prison?

Many old people have crappy ailments in their last days; they don't just go from being fine to dead, and none of them are let out.

The hell?

Because the law has - for good reason when it's not used for covering up corruption - a compassionate release allowance for the claimed situation.

This disagreement goes to the basis standards of civilization of our citizens, where some would happily approve the malnutrition, untreated medical problems, torture, whatever of prisoners.

The undermining of a humanitarian program like this by cynical corporatists endangering it by giving opponents more ammo makes it all the more heinous.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe I need to be beaten until I understand but why couldn't they have just kept him in jail in Scotland?

Forgive me my ignorance but I was under the impression he was sentenced to enough time that there's no way he'd ever have lived out his sentence. So then why let a guy who's essentially sentenced to die in prison free because, well, oh snap he's going to die in prison?

Many old people have crappy ailments in their last days; they don't just go from being fine to dead, and none of them are let out.

The hell?

What are the numbers for those released and those who die in jail?

 

[CallMeJoe]

$$$
B(ristish)P stood to get some pretty big contracts with Libia if the guy was released.
Maybe the oil leak in the Gulf was planned by the Obama Admin to get the money from BP that BP got from Libia? <Tin-foil hats on>
Obama:It was Bush's fault.

Time for another Prozac, Jeffrey?

 

[heyheybooboo]

$$$
B(ristish)P stood to get some pretty big contracts with Libia if the guy was released.
Maybe the oil leak in the Gulf was planned by the Obama Admin to get the money from BP that BP got from Libia? <Tin-foil hats on>

Obama:It was Bush's fault.

IIRC (I didn't read the article), they (Libya and KaDaffy) also refused to make the final payment (around $2B?) of compensation for the victims of Lockerbie unless al-Megrahi was included in the swap.

"We" don't negotiate with the terra-ists, and have now embraced KaDaffy as a reform-minded lover of peace and joy for all faiths and peoples (even though we should 'fox' a Hellfire up his butt).




--

 

[waggy]

IF this is true this is not good. i don't believe it . hell i don't want to believe a president would agree to the release of this man.

 

[BoberFett]

Time for another Prozac, Jeffrey?

I think he was trying to be funny. I chuckled.

 

[Craig234]

IF this is true this is not good. i don't believe it . hell i don't want to believe a president would agree to the release of this man.

I'm worried about you, since you sound like you are not aware of the history of the many times the President has approved the training and unleashing of terrorists.

I like the idealism, but you need to support it by being informed when the president does wrong and opposing that.

For example, we trained countless terrorists and organized and sponsored them from Latin America to Vietnam and more. This one pales in comparison.

Heck, we harbored ones such as the one who blew up a Cuban airliner, who had worked for us on various operations.

 

[waggy]

I'm worried about you, since you sound like you are not aware of the history of the many times the President has approved the training and unleashing of terrorists.

I like the idealism, but you need to support it by being informed when the president does wrong and opposing that.

For example, we trained countless terrorists and organized and sponsored them from Latin America to Vietnam and more. This one pales in comparison.

Heck, we harbored ones such as the one who blew up a Cuban airliner, who had worked for us on various operations.

and that makes it right? until real proof comes out i don't buy the story. Obama has said he is not the same as bush (now i would have to beleive from him).


nope its not real.

 

[Craig234]

and that makes it right?

That's not what I said. You missed the point it seems.

 

[werepossum]

IF this is true this is not good. i don't believe it . hell i don't want to believe a president would agree to the release of this man.

Seems perfectly in character for Obama to me. Remember that he's all about appeasing the Muslim world and making them feel good, even to the point of tasking NASA with that job. Having their triumphant infidel-murdering hero return home is certainly making them feel good. Remember too that Obama cannot prevent the UK from releasing him - or rather, he could by applying diplomatic pressure, but then the UK would naturally want some concessions in return for not acting in what they perceive to be their own best interest. Since like any good progressive he hates America and expects everyone else to do the same, I doubt he really expected a big fuss about it. From his point of view the guy only did the logical and natural thing, after all.

The real surprise to me is that some idiot put this in writing, reducing the Obama spin to actual black and white printed words. This probably just comes from having an amateur operation, not knowing that one can't control even a lapdog international press like one can control Chicago. This actually benefits us since we can see how government works - duplicity and outright dishonesty much of the time - rather than just seeing the inexplicable end results with a slicker administration. The result here would probably be the same with any likely president, just now we see the lying and dissembling made clear.

 

[Moonbeam]

and that makes it right? until real proof comes out i don't buy the story. Obama has said he is not the same as bush (now i would have to beleive from him).


nope its not real.

I think Obama is as much a fanatic about his job to keep the country safe from terrorism as Bush was. Apparently, a good deal of his time is spent reviewing and approving drone shot requests. I guess, if your a terrorist bent of killing as many innocent people, especially Americans, as you can, you should think twice about messing with folk who take their jobs seriously and have such a role as part of their job description.

The weird thing about folk who will run for President is that they know what the job is and are willing to do it.