Our closest ally stabs us in the back

[Zoraptor]

There are also a couple of good documentaries which were the main reason I knew much about it apart from the trial basics.

 

@aristes, primarily.

 

Walsh's article is poor because it is wholly assertional- it works back from a known 'certainty' (Megrahi = guilty) presenting only evidence that supports that assertion and without considering alternatives, or flaws, or being even slightly critical in its analysis. It simply states the prosecution case, as presented at trial, as fact.

 

People are still pursuing the case- many of the UK victims' families want a public inquiry- Jim Swires is probably the most famous. That's also why the release decision was not universally panned by the families in the UK as opposed to those in the US- many of the UK families believe that the wrong man had been convicted. Most of the evidence (and counter evidence) presented for the trial and leave to appeal hearing is Matter of Record- it can probably be requested (some of it at least) from the Scottish courts, allowing anyone to make their own mind up.

 

For the record, I actually have no opinion on Megrahi's- or Libyan- guilt as such, it is plausible that they were either directly or indirectly responsible. But with the tarnishing of the only two direct pieces of evidence there isn't and wasn't enough evidence to convict him, and his appeal would almost certainly succeed.

 

And when it comes to conspiracy theories I have a simple rule: 95% of the time a conspiracy theory can be explained by incompetence or bad luck, rather than malice. Bush didn't do 9/11, the US fully expected to find WMDs in Iraq, Waco was a sadly logical end to an apocalyptic cult, Diana died because her driver was drunk.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

There was indeed a problem with the guy who identified the timer fragment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thurman so I guess these doubts aren't baseless after all.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[taks]

Waco was a sadly logical end to an apocalyptic cult

i'd argue incompetence... well, with the displayed incompetence, the result was logical.

 

taks

[Aristes]

I just think he'll end up being exonerated if he didn't commit the crime. With something this high profile, it's got to come out. ...And if it does then it validates the system. I'm not hostile to him being set free, I just can't look at all the evidence and I trust the court to sift through it. I must trust them. I don't have a choice. At some point, unless you want to create your own compound in Idaho, you have to buy into society.

 

...But I'm not hostile to your position. I'm just more conservative about how I look at it. We need 'liberal' and 'conservative' folks. One group to keep things stable and the other group to shake things up.

[Walsingham]

And when it comes to conspiracy theories I have a simple rule: 95% of the time a conspiracy theory can be explained by incompetence or bad luck, rather than malice. Bush didn't do 9/11, the US fully expected to find WMDs in Iraq, Waco was a sadly logical end to an apocalyptic cult, Diana died because her driver was drunk.

 

OK, you got me willing to listen now.

 

1. Passport 'error'. It's a mistake to presume operational behaviour can't look odd to people who weren't there. Using his own passport may have been safer on that one occasion. It may also have been intended as a double blind. BY your own argument inconsistency with or expectation isn't proof.

 

2. I suggest (for the sake of argument) that attempting to pursue multi-national terrorist cases where there is state involvement is inevitably going to throw up a somewhat threadbare case. Particularly when a deliberate effort has been made to make the trail look weird. Is it not fair to say then that we can either accept a lower threshold of guilt in such cases or we're going to have to surrender to the threat entirely?

 

3. Don't be so mean to Stratfor. They are nice guys.

[Nightshape]

Yeah, sucks when governments make decisions like this but what can you do... Atleast we've upset the American's that's always a win.

[Killian Kalthorne]

The guy should have died in prison. I just like to know how much mercy and compassion this guy has shown to the victims and the families of the victims to deserve being released.

[Darth InSidious]

I just think he'll end up being exonerated if he didn't commit the crime. With something this high profile, it's got to come out.

Why?

 

...And if it does then it validates the system.

By showing there was a miscarriage of justice on a spectacular scale and based on potentially very dodgy evidence?

 

I'm not hostile to him being set free, I just can't look at all the evidence and I trust the court to sift through it. I must trust them.

Why? Are you at gunpoint?

I don't have a choice. At some point, unless you want to create your own compound in Idaho, you have to buy into society.

So putting more stock in the fallibility of people and their capacity to do evil knowingly and willingly, including to put an innocent man in prison on a life sentence, equates to cutting yourself off from society? And why does not trusting one court, at which a man was tried by a panel of judges in a particular country call into question the entire judicial system worldwide?

 

...But I'm not hostile to your position. I'm just more conservative about how I look at it. We need 'liberal' and 'conservative' folks. One group to keep things stable and the other group to shake things up.

We need neither.

 

Yeah, sucks when governments make decisions like this but what can you do... Atleast we've upset the American's that's always a win.

About time, too. It's just a pity that the Scottish Parliament has more balls than Westminster.

[Walsingham]

Yeah, sucks when governments make decisions like this but what can you do... Atleast we've upset the American's that's always a win.

 

Yeah. Thumbs up, mate. Upset 240 passengers and eleven people on the ground's families. Why don't you just tapdance a little?

[Aristes]

I don't want to do a point by point answer to your questions, DI. I'll just give a big answer and you can cut it up into smaller quotes for one word snippets as you like.

 

Of course I have to trust the courts up in Scottland. No, I'm not at gunpoint, but I also lack any options. Am I going to fly to Scottland and do an investigation? Am I going to verify the facts myself? The Scotts have a system in place and, frankly, even if I don't like the system, I really don't have any choice. Even if I completely agreed that they're either corrupt or criminally incompetent, I don't have any choice. I guess I could call up my homies and invade? Furthermore, why should I trust you or any other member of this forum more than the Scottish court system? Because you can make angrier posts? The courts in Scottland might have their own peculiarities, but I would imagine that they are not all that dissimilar to courts in other western democracies. That is to say, you might be able to point out huge differences between individual western democracies, but all of them are probably closer together than, say, a strong arm junta.

 

Since every system contrived my humanity has been subject to the failure of humans, we can only hope that there is something in place to correct wrongs. Would it be better if someone were convicted by a magistrate and there existed no way to appeal? The fact that the system can correct for mistakes, particularly grave mistakes, is certainly a good thing. Unless you build your courts in fantasy land where no one ever makes a mistake. In fantasy land, there are no shady convictions. In Scottland, where they make mistakes like every other country, there is a process by which these mistakes can be corrected and seeing those corrections validates the system.

 

Frankly, I think there are two wrongs, assuming that the conviction is overturned. First of all, an innocent man went to jail. Second of all, the guilty parties went unpunished.

 

I'd point out that I'm not an angry American, so if the goal were to piss me off... well, I'll try harder. Maybe if we angry post with each other?

 

I'll agree that you're right! Screw the Scottish. What do I care about them anyhow? Off to Idaho with me.

 

Second right! We need no stinkin' lib'rals. Hey, we do need conservatives.

[213374U]

Of course I have to trust the courts up in Scottland. No, I'm not at gunpoint, but I also lack any options. Am I going to fly to Scottland and do an investigation? Am I going to verify the facts myself? The Scotts have a system in place and, frankly, even if I don't like the system, I really don't have any choice. Even if I completely agreed that they're either corrupt or criminally incompetent, I don't have any choice. I guess I could call up my homies and invade? Furthermore, why should I trust you or any other member of this forum more than the Scottish court system? Because you can make angrier posts? The courts in Scottland might have their own peculiarities, but I would imagine that they are not all that dissimilar to courts in other western democracies. That is to say, you might be able to point out huge differences between individual western democracies, but all of them are probably closer together than, say, a strong arm junta.

So, basically you're giving up your right to an independent criteria? You defer your private judgment to those officially appointed? I don't know man, that kind of shrug and walk away attitude is, I think, a recipe for disaster. I don't think anyone is asking you to believe what they're posting as if it were gospel, but taking what a Scottish court decided as gospel isn't much better. I didn't think you were such an establishment guy.

 

Disagreeing with or outright not trusting the institutions doesn't leave you with armed resistance as the only option. For now, we just bide our time...

 

 

Since every system contrived my humanity has been subject to the failure of humans...

Yeah, back to square one, are we? The problem with manmade systems is and always has been... man. That is no excuse for when they are insulting people's intelligence, though.

 

Ugh, I sound more and more like Hades every day.

[Aristes]

Aw, now you've called me an establishment guy. Them's fightin' words! lol

 

No, seriously, I get you. I get both you and DI. It's just that... I don't have any real outrage over this. I've read a few articles and I guess I'm willing to hope for the best in Scottland. Maybe the real problem is, I'm not an angry American. This seems like an internal Scottish matter. We agreed to let them proscecute the offenders and we don't really have any hold over Megrahi. I honestly do think it sucks if the guy were wrongfully convicted. I guess the point is, someone has to sift through the facts and I'm just as happy to let the Scottish government do it for me.

 

From day one, I always figured that this was out of our hands as Americans and out of my hands as an individual. I still believe that successfully exonerating Megrahi would validate the system. Yes, there might have been a grave injustice, but the system could correct itself.

 

Even so, if I offended your intelligence, sahib, then I will gladly beg forgiveness.

 

You know, if I were to be intellectually honest, I guess I would say that I'm probably more of an establishment guy than not. I don't like that fact, but it's true. I joined the military at 17. There are a large number of cops in my family. I have had a large number of cop friends. I'm thinking about applying to law school. Actually, I already have my recommendations, so I guess I'm more than thinking about it. I believe in democratic institutions. The point is, I'm an establishment guy. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to take on the establishment, but I'd rather take it on here for things relating to me personally than take it on in Scottland.

 

As an aside, I once served on a jury and the judge, upon hearing that I have so many police officers in my family, asked if that would prevent me from being fair. I responded that even though I was related or friends with so many cops that I wouldn't let it bias me against the prosecution.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Frankly, I think there are two wrongs, assuming that the conviction is overturned. First of all, an innocent man went to jail. Second of all, the guilty parties went unpunished.

Even if the conviction were overturned, that doesn't necessarily follow. I think what's at stake here is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, Lybia did admit responsibility and paid compensation, and they clearly bought those timers to make bombs, and there's other circumstantial evidence implicating Megrahi, although some of it may not be used in court or not be strong enough to eliminate reasonable doubt.

[213374U]

@Aristes

 

Nah, the insult to intelligence wasn't aimed at you, or even necessarily related to this topic, as I'm not really familiar with the facts. It was more of a general statement. This thread reminded me of the thing that's been going on over here about 11-M, and your comments surprised me. You see, one of the things I like the most about US democracy is that, on paper at least, it relies on the citizenry to keep an eye on it - unlike French Revolution-inspired Euro States which quite blatantly fear the people.

 

So, what's the deal, then? Are you not bothered by this because it was NOT an act of the US gov't, or because of genuine faith in the general infallibility of democratic institutions? I ask this because not being an angry citizen doesn't mean you can't be intellectually "restless". Sorry if I sound condescending but not being in possession of all the details doesn't mean you must defer to the opinions of officials just because they are the ones wearing the wigs and fancy dresses. Folks here aren't posting any original research, simply referring to different sources, which may raise valid points. I think it's always possible (and often rather sensible) not to have an opinion, especially if you take everything with the same dose of healthy skepticism.

 

Huh, and I'm not even wearing my tinfoil hat as I write this.

[Aristes]

lol You know, recently I mailed the administration and several congresspeople. I actually do write to my legislators when I'm angry. Sadly, not so much when I'm pleased. I firmly agree with the idea that citizens need to keep an eye on the government. I trust democratic institutions precisely because the citizens oversee these institutions, and you're right on in my thinking. In fact, that's what I take for granted is happening in Scottland. I take it for granted that the citizens of Scottland are providing oversight to the process. The courts can't be too hinkey because the people will undoubtedly see it. I also don't believe that democratic institutions are infallible. I just think they're the best choice we have.

 

As far as the case against Megrahi goes... it's hard for me to find strong feelings in myself over it. Not because I don't believe it would be terrible that an innocent man be convicted. That is clearly terrible. Hell, I'm not even for a guilty man to be convicted by misuse of the process. That's the thing. If we can't trust the process, then we're screwed.

 

I think the reason I'm so detached from the case is simply because so much of it is out of my hands and the main event occured while I was serving overseas and had a lot on my plate. In an intellectual sense, I'm more invested in this discussion than I am in the case itself. I heard that folks were outraged that he was being set free. Now I'm hearing folks outraged that he was convicted. I can't sort it out and I sure as hell hope the Scots are doing their job. Now, if any of the members here are from Scottland, I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.

 

...But, and this is the clincher for me, I'm always willing to step back from a position. I just need to see where I'm wrong and be genuinely convinced.

[Zoraptor]

1. Passport 'error'. It's a mistake to presume operational behaviour can't look odd to people who weren't there. Using his own passport may have been safer on that one occasion. It may also have been intended as a double blind. BY your own argument inconsistency with or expectation isn't proof.

I agree, in principle. The problem is in invisaging a situation in which an intelligence agent, knowing that he was going to be partaking in a bomb plot, would find it either necessary or advantageous to use his own passport and then go and personally purchase items to be used in a bombing, establishing a chain of evidence. We know he had a spare passport, so why take the risk? I'd posit that while it is possible that al-Megrahi's id was accurate and he bought the clothes, the strong possibility exists, even if you accept the id, that he simply bought some clothes and had no idea to what purpose they would be put.

 

Basically, I discount it because it would be trivially easy to avoid (any of: don't buy unique clothing, purchase in a third party country, steal the clothing, use fake passport, use a blind to purchase) and it is reasonable to expect a trained intelligence operative to take reasonable care if planning on blowing up an airliner.

 

2. I suggest (for the sake of argument) that attempting to pursue multi-national terrorist cases where there is state involvement is inevitably going to throw up a somewhat threadbare case. Particularly when a deliberate effort has been made to make the trail look weird. Is it not fair to say then that we can either accept a lower threshold of guilt in such cases or we're going to have to surrender to the threat entirely?

No, we should not be lowering burdens of proof just on the say so of intelligence agencies- that opens up an enormous can of worms because while it may be well intentioned it is open to abuse deliberate and accidental. It inevitably leads to 'prove your innocence' type situations where a falsely accused person cannot reasonably be expected to prevail.

 

To illustrate, in a fairly famous refugee case here the fact that the refugee's camera's photos had "symbols of western capitalism" in some of them was used as evidence he was a terrorist scout. In any sane system that simply indicates that it is impossible to take pictures in most cities without getting McDonalds or Starbucks in the background of some. In a system where the burden of proof is effectively reversed, however...

[Guard Dog]

Not to derail this thread but it seems terminally ill terrorists are sent home to a hero's welcome and terminally ill citizens are "put to sleep".

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne...on-the-NHS.html

[213374U]

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government

[~Di]

Yeah, sucks when governments make decisions like this but what can you do... Atleast we've upset the American's that's always a win.

 

[Aristes]

It's not like the English and even some of the Scots aren't pissed off. *shrug* I've never been angry about this in the first place, but I can grit my teeth and try to turn green. RAAAWWWWWHHHHHHRRRRRR

[Nightshape]

Yeah, sucks when governments make decisions like this but what can you do... Atleast we've upset the American's that's always a win.

 

Yeah. Thumbs up, mate. Upset 240 passengers and eleven people on the ground's families. Why don't you just tapdance a little?

 

Internet Humour Fail!

[Walsingham]

Yeah, sucks when governments make decisions like this but what can you do... Atleast we've upset the American's that's always a win.

 

Yeah. Thumbs up, mate. Upset 240 passengers and eleven people on the ground's families. Why don't you just tapdance a little?

 

Internet Humour Fail!

 

Ah nuts.

 

Going back to the point about court proceedings. I accept the point that one has a right to have one's own opinion irrespective of a court. I recall saying just this point over Michael Jackson. However, I also said that I accept the prima facie validity of the court's judgement. They spend days looking at evidence. If I'm feeling het up I'll spend an hour looking it over.

[Walsingham]

Gordon Brown is worst Prime Minister EVER.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ked-to-oil.html

 

Cabinet colleague admits quite simply in plain English that the release was in exchange for oil. I stand humbled, and retract my earlier defence. This is a national disgrace. For what it's worth, I am ashamed and apologetic.

[Rostere]

um, 4. justice.

 

taks

 

Justice is defined by the previous three points.

 

...And, Rostere, bro, we're naive? I think a lot of us are entirely realistic about the situation. It might have been a quid pro quo, but it might not.

 

I think my post discussed both these situations, and I came to the conclusion that even if they didn't strike a deal with the Libyans it would be in their best interest to let him go.

 

If this really is a matter of a public official acting in accordance to his role in office, then the law should definitely account for folks who kills hundreds of people. This isn't some guy who killed someone else in a fit of rage. it's not even someone who murdered his family before being caught and convicted. This is a someone who killed many families worth of people. The sheer number of people killed in the attack puts it on a different level than ordinary crime. I think terrorist acts should be handled differently by the system. Of course, I'm not from Scotland and I'm not related to any of the victims, so I don't have a stake in the fight other than to observe that it is not, as taks said, justice.

 

Justice works the same regardless of what category the crime falls in, anything else would be deeply hypocritical. I agree that to prevent terrorist attacks, you must act differently than when you work to prevent the other types of crime you mentioned.

 

Meshugger is right about forgiveness. It is better of us to forgive that to condemn. However, balanced against that is justice. I believe sincerely that everyone with a repentant heart deserves forgiveness, but I also know that justice does not always demand forgiveness and it is sometimes beyond our human powers to forgive. If he repents of his crime, then someone will forgive him, perhaps even among the family of his victims.

 

(Eventual) forgiveness is part of justice, and not in any way at all separated from or contradictory to it.

 

Since we're getting all aerated and morally outraged itt , perhaps we could spare some small thoughts for the US Government- in the form of Capt. Will Rogers III- who shot down an Iranian airliner broadcasting a civilian IFF and on a standard civilian flightplan (killing 290), from inside Iranian territorial borders, while partaking in an unauthorised incursion from which he had already been ordered to withdraw but which order he was ignoring, blatantly and repeatedly lied about it, for which they were awarded medals and to this day hasn't even been apologised for, let alone anyone prosecuted.

 

That was out of stupidity, and not a planned attack. He should not be jailed, but instead pay a compensation. Since the US govt. paid the relatives of the victims, i don't have any complaints here.

 

Note also, while the IranAir victims did get $61 million the Lockerbie victims got $2.7 billion, or roughly 45 times the amount.

 

Well, different people value life differently, and some people are not as wealthy as others. As long as we don't have a fully functional international court that can put a price tag on life we can't tell what's fair and what's not in this case.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Rostere

[Gorgon]

Not to derail this thread but it seems terminally ill terrorists are sent home to a hero's welcome and terminally ill citizens are "put to sleep".

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne...on-the-NHS.html

Actually I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Every lethal illness has it's last stages, and trying just for the sake of medicine to prolong life indefinitely would be a much worse policy. As long as the patient is lucid, however, he or she should have a say in the matter.