Our closest ally stabs us in the back

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090830/wl_uk...nuslibyaattacks

 

This should be a wake up call to tell the rest of the world to FO and to start pursuing our own interests in the most efficient way possible.

[Slowtrain]

This should be a wake up call to tell the rest of the world to FO and to start pursuing our own interests in the most efficient way possible.

 

 

Don't we do that all ready?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Wow... Just wow... That artical is wrong -as in it gets facts incorrect- in so many ways it's not funny.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[taks]

what ways would those be?

 

taks

[Gorgon]

I think it's entirely possible that this was part of the price for getting Khadafi on 'our team'.

[Guard Dog]

I found the article to be completely factual. What I don't get is why this surprises anyone. Gorgon is right to a point. Khadafi is not "on our team" they wanted something from him, he demanded something from them. Simple quid pro quo. He was released for oil contracts, simple as that. I'm sure there was an element of "compassion" involved because the poor helpless little terrrorist dear had cancer. Boo hoo. I am always amazed at how squishy and soft many european politicians seem to be when it comes to punishing evil doers.

[Enoch]

Doesn't pass a smell test. Among other things, the Lybians would have to be mind-blowingly stupid to hold out on increasing trade connections with the West (which would be of enormous economic benefit to their country) based on something so minor as the release of a single prisoner.

 

 

And-- just speaking hypothetically here-- is it really all that bad if this was a quid pro quo? Surely the positive commercial impact of the deal overwhelmingly outweighs the punishment and deterrence interests associated with keeping Megrahi in prison. Yeah, you keep it quiet because some overly emotional relatives of the dead passengers would raise holy hell if they knew about it, but if you want to do your duty as a public servant and promote the overall best interests of your nation, you do that deal 10 times out of 10.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Enoch

[Guard Dog]

Doesn't pass a smell test. Among other things, the Lybians would have to be mind-blowingly stupid to hold out on increasing trade connections with the West (which would be of enormous economic benefit to their country) based on something so minor as the release of a single prisoner.

 

 

And-- just speaking hypothetically here-- is it really all that bad if this was a quid pro quo? Surely the positive commercial impact of the deal overwhelmingly outweighs the punishment and deterrence interests associated with keeping Megrahi in prison. Yeah, you keep it quiet because some overly emotional relatives of the dead passengers would raise holy hell if they knew about it, but if you want to do your duty as a public servant and promote the overall best interests of your nation, you do that deal 10 times out of 10.

I did not say it was a bad thing, I just said it was true. And it is. As for it being right or wrong, I really do not care. The British and Scottish governments owe nothing to anyone but themselves. If they need to use an asset in their posession to barter a better deal then that is their business. I doubt Libya would have passed on the deal if the release was refused, they would have asked for something else. As it stands this was a probably a pretty small price to pay. Allowing Khadafi to have his "hero" and his moment of PR costs nothing but some bad PR for them and the anger of people who don't get to vote in their elections anyway.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

what ways would those be?

 

 

The biggest is that they keep talking like it was England when, in fact, it was Scottland -id est the Scottish Government or, correctly, the Scottish Executive (if I remember correctly)- and not London who released him. Now that might have been at England's bequest but until that is proven, or at least strongly supported, it groundless.

[Enoch]

I did not say it was a bad thing.

 

Was I misreading this line?

I am always amazed at how squishy and soft many european politicians seem to be when it comes to punishing evil doers.

[Guard Dog]

I did not say it was a bad thing.

 

Was I misreading this line?

I am always amazed at how squishy and soft many european politicians seem to be when it comes to punishing evil doers.

Yeah, that was a little out of context from the rest of what I was trying to say. More like an after thought. But it is true that the justice systems in Europe are usually pretty lenient compared to others.

[Hurlshort]

I think the Americans complaining about this need a lesson in taking the higher ground. The guy is going to die in a few weeks.

[Wrath of Dagon]

This should be a wake up call to tell the rest of the world to FO and to start pursuing our own interests in the most efficient way possible.

 

 

Don't we do that all ready?

No, why the hell do we still have all those troops stationed in Europe?

 

I think the Americans complaining about this need a lesson in taking the higher ground. The guy is going to die in a few weeks

Yes, let's show some compassion, like the compassion he showed to the scores of Americans he murdered.

[Hurlshort]

That's why it is called the HIGHER GROUND.

[Aristes]

what ways would those be?

 

 

The biggest is that they keep talking like it was England when, in fact, it was Scottland -id est the Scottish Government or, correctly, the Scottish Executive (if I remember correctly)- and not London who released him. Now that might have been at England's bequest but until that is proven, or at least strongly supported, it groundless.

That simply is one of the most grasping arguments I've seen in a while, bro.

 

The basis for the article seems perfectly solid. I mean, we could nitpik small items that are part of common language usage all day, but does it really matter whether I say "the government of the United Kingdom" or "the English?" How about Great Britain?

 

Aside from that, I don't really care. In principle, I think sending the terrorist back to Libya is wrong, but we gave the Scotts the right to prosecute him and, in so doing, we have no further hold on him.

 

I disagree with E in that motivations that seem ridiculous or naive or shallow to one person, especially when they relate to global politics, might still be important to world leaders. I think it was a huge boon for Libya and, most importantly, Moammar Gadhafi to have Meghari released. After all, it does elevate the nation and its leader in the eyes of other middle easterns countries. Since both the country and Meghari have always claimed innocence, they can claim this as a sort of moral victory, even though the move on the part of the Scotts really does not indicate that they doubt Libya or Meghari's guilt.

 

All that said, as I understand it this sort of clemency is fairly common in Scottland. So, I agree with the families for protesting and I think it's perfectly legit for folks to hold Scottish, UK, and US leaders' feet to the fire, I also agree with Enoch that it is probably in the best interest for everyone. It just plain sucks, but it would be good to have Libya rejoin the world community and not feel compelled to act as a terrorist state.

[~Di]

I don't think he should have been released... life in prison means, like, until dead... y'know? But frankly it's not our call. Scotland tried him, convicted him, imprisoned him, and ultimately released him, all apparently in accordance with Scottish law. If I was a friend or relative of one of the victims, I'd been protesting my heart out, just as the families are now. But that's on a personal level. Quid-pro-quo or not, it's quite simply none of our business on a national level.

Edited August 31, 2009 by ~Di

[Humodour]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090830/wl_uk...nuslibyaattacks

 

This should be a wake up call to tell the rest of the world to FO and to start pursuing our own interests in the most efficient way possible.

 

America does that already.

 

That said the bastard should rot in gaol till he dies a miserable lonely death. That's more then he gave the hundreds of innocents he butchered.

[Walsingham]

1) Scotland, or more specifically one scottish minister released him.

 

2) Having said that, Gordon Brown, the 'missing prime-minister' did nothing about this. Given that the Scots assembly has no writ upon foreign affairs and this has a strong foreign policy element, it should have been possible for him to intervene. He didn't.

 

3) Personally I feel it sends interesting signals to the mid-east if we act compassionately, and would consider it except...

 

4) We made a very clear commitment to the USA that he would serve his term in Scotland, and releasing him goes back on that promise.

[Meshugger]

Well, if the scots released him on the sole basis of being compassionate to his impending death, then kudos to them really. Being able to forgive such an act requires tremendous courage and strength of character. Heck, i bet even Jesus would be proud of that.

 

But if it is based on the game of realpolitik, even if it would've been quite unlikely like Walsh demonstrated, then "meh".

[Humodour]

Well, if the scots released him on the sole basis of being compassionate to his impending death, then kudos to them really. Being able to forgive such an act requires tremendous courage and strength of character. Heck, i bet even Jesus would be proud of that.

 

But if it is based on the game of realpolitik, even if it would've been quite unlikely like Walsh demonstrated, then "meh".

 

The Scots already forgave him by giving him life imprisonment (20 years?) instead of the death penalty. They do not owe him compassion.

 

Edit: For the record, I despise the death penalty.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Krezack

[Wrath of Dagon]

4) We made a very clear commitment to the USA that he would serve his term in Scotland, and releasing him goes back on that promise.

That, a lot of people don't realize that US gave up its right to prosecute Megrahi so that the deal with Lybia to prosecute him could be made and the West's relations with Lybia normalized.

[Walsingham]

I don't believe it was to wangle some oil deal. Scotland doesn't own any oil companies I know of. If oil was the issue you'd expect it to be the US leaning on us.

 

He killed 240 people. Stratfor's lengthy analysis went through the case in detail and the balance of probability is that he was a Libyan agent. I really genuinely don't see what compassion has to do with this case.

[Gorgon]

Khadafi wants to avoid sanctions and not be known mostly for harboring terrorists. He is not any kind of Islamic extremist, more just plain crazy. He survived two US bombing runs on his house and has an elite palace guard consisting entirely of buxom young women. That last part is always worth a giggle.

[Walsingham]

And Kim Jong Il has a waterslide. What's that really supposed to change?

[Gorgon]

Does every damn post have to be an in depth analysis. A cadre of buxom bodyguards is worth mentioning for its own sake.