http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6815638.ece

<quote>

Gordon Brown was dragged into the centre of the row over the early release
of the Lockerbie bomber last night after it emerged that a key decision that
could have paved the way for the terrorist to serve his sentence in Libya
was approved by Downing Street.

A source close to Jack Straw told The Times that the move to include Abdul
Baset Ali al-Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement in 2007 was a
government decision and was not made at the sole discretion of the Justice
Secretary.

</quote>

Except ... al-Megrahi was not released as part of any prisoner transfer deal
with the UK, but released on compassionate grounds by Scotland.

At best it seems the UK government agreed that it would be possible to serve
his time in Libya and dropping his appeal seems to have been pre-conditional
on that.

That process was entirely separate to the process of seeking release on
compassionate grounds.

Now whether al-Megrahi was told he had to drop his appeal in order to secure
his release on compassionate grounds; that's a more interesting issue. If so
that could amount to Downing Street either trying to blocking al-Megrahi's
release, or misrepresenting the legal situation to al-Megrahi and his
lawyers.

So instead of 'Brown orders terrorist release for oil deal', a much more
convincing scenario is ...

1) The UK government saw transfer of al-Megrahi as beneficial in encouraging
relations between the country, and did therefore would not oppose a transfer
deal.

2) Scotland indicates it has agreed to release al-Megrahi on completely
separate compassionate grounds.

3) The UK government sees an opportunity to get al-Megrahi to drop his
appeal and takes it.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6815638.ece
> 
> <quote>
> 
> Gordon Brown was dragged into the centre of the row over the early release
> of the Lockerbie bomber last night after it emerged that a key decision
> that could have paved the way for the terrorist to serve his sentence in
> Libya was approved by Downing Street.
> 
> A source close to Jack Straw told The Times that the move to include Abdul
> Baset Ali al-Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement in 2007 was a
> government decision and was not made at the sole discretion of the Justice
> Secretary.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> Except ... al-Megrahi was not released as part of any prisoner transfer
> deal with the UK, but released on compassionate grounds by Scotland.
> 
> At best it seems the UK government agreed that it would be possible to
> serve his time in Libya and dropping his appeal seems to have been
> pre-conditional on that.
> 
> That process was entirely separate to the process of seeking release on
> compassionate grounds.
> 
> Now whether al-Megrahi was told he had to drop his appeal in order to
> secure his release on compassionate grounds; that's a more interesting
> issue. If so that could amount to Downing Street either trying to blocking
> al-Megrahi's release, or misrepresenting the legal situation to al-Megrahi
> and his lawyers.
> 
> So instead of 'Brown orders terrorist release for oil deal', a much more
> convincing scenario is ...
> 
> 1) The UK government saw transfer of al-Megrahi as beneficial in
> encouraging relations between the country, and did therefore would not
> oppose a transfer deal.
> 
> 2) Scotland indicates it has agreed to release al-Megrahi on completely
> separate compassionate grounds.
> 
> 3) The UK government sees an opportunity to get al-Megrahi to drop his
> appeal and takes it.

We really need to see all the official papers (minutes, etc) on this. Kenny 
MacAskill has already undertaken to release all his, and Brown should do the 
same. So has Mr Megrahi, in order to facilitate a public enquiry.

It's an interesting question as to whether, had Downing Street opposed 
compassionate release, Kenny MacAskill would nevertheless have taken the 
same course of action. The main stream media (often not up to speed on 
Scottish affairs) seem to assume that devolution makes little difference 
(wrong!) and that, as in the days when Scottish Labour plus the LibDem  ran 
the show north of the Border, the Scottish Executive (as they persist in 
calling it) will dance to Westminster's tune.

But, as Alex Salmond pointed out after the Glasgow East result, those days 
are long gone, and nowadays Westminster has to respect Scotland's 
Government.

Therefore, there is no question that Kenny MacAskill followed Scottish law 
and would have done so in any case.

For what it's worth, the oil advantage gained  with Libya probably 
disadvantages Scotland in one way, in that it diminishes the UK's dependence 
on North Sea oil. So had the Scottish Government sought to use the issue for 
party political purposes, they would have shot themselves in the foot. Which 
they are most certainly not in the habit of doing.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6815638.ece
> 
> <quote>
> 
> Gordon Brown was dragged into the centre of the row over the early release
> of the Lockerbie bomber last night after it emerged that a key decision that
> could have paved the way for the terrorist to serve his sentence in Libya
> was approved by Downing Street.
> 
> A source close to Jack Straw told The Times that the move to include Abdul
> Baset Ali al-Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement in 2007 was a
> government decision and was not made at the sole discretion of the Justice
> Secretary.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> Except ... al-Megrahi was not released as part of any prisoner transfer deal
> with the UK, but released on compassionate grounds by Scotland.
> 
> At best it seems the UK government agreed that it would be possible to serve
> his time in Libya and dropping his appeal seems to have been pre-conditional
> on that.
> 
> That process was entirely separate to the process of seeking release on
> compassionate grounds.
> 
> Now whether al-Megrahi was told he had to drop his appeal in order to secure
> his release on compassionate grounds; that's a more interesting issue. If so
> that could amount to Downing Street either trying to blocking al-Megrahi's
> release, or misrepresenting the legal situation to al-Megrahi and his
> lawyers.
> 
> So instead of 'Brown orders terrorist release for oil deal', a much more
> convincing scenario is ...
> 
> 1) The UK government saw transfer of al-Megrahi as beneficial in encouraging
> relations between the country, and did therefore would not oppose a transfer
> deal.
> 
> 2) Scotland indicates it has agreed to release al-Megrahi on completely
> separate compassionate grounds.
> 
> 3) The UK government sees an opportunity to get al-Megrahi to drop his
> appeal and takes it.

Sure, just one big, happy coincidence ,,, No coordination or ulterior 
motives involved with anyone.
Just happened to have worked out where everyone is happy as a clam - 
Except the Lockerbie bombing victims families, and the large majority of 
educated populations in civilized countries, who see this cheap sham 
barter deal for exactly what it is.
Figures, what your devious mind fancies as a "convincing scenario" is 
actually highly implausible.

Theres an old saying here - Money talks, bullshit walks.
Its about the oil, stupid ,,,, Or "encouraging relations", as you phrase it.
Nuff said.

Yes.

Now, what was the question this time?
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:PMRmm.73978$OO7.65579@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6815638.ece
>
> <quote>
>
> Gordon Brown was dragged into the centre of the row over the early release
> of the Lockerbie bomber last night after it emerged that a key decision 
> that
> could have paved the way for the terrorist to serve his sentence in Libya
> was approved by Downing Street.
>
> A source close to Jack Straw told The Times that the move to include Abdul
> Baset Ali al-Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement in 2007 was a
> government decision and was not made at the sole discretion of the Justice
> Secretary.
>
> </quote>
>
> Except ... al-Megrahi was not released as part of any prisoner transfer 
> deal
> with the UK, but released on compassionate grounds by Scotland.
>
> At best it seems the UK government agreed that it would be possible to 
> serve
> his time in Libya and dropping his appeal seems to have been 
> pre-conditional
> on that.
>
> That process was entirely separate to the process of seeking release on
> compassionate grounds.
>
> Now whether al-Megrahi was told he had to drop his appeal in order to 
> secure
> his release on compassionate grounds; that's a more interesting issue. If 
> so
> that could amount to Downing Street either trying to blocking al-Megrahi's
> release, or misrepresenting the legal situation to al-Megrahi and his
> lawyers.
>
> So instead of 'Brown orders terrorist release for oil deal', a much more
> convincing scenario is ...
>
> 1) The UK government saw transfer of al-Megrahi as beneficial in 
> encouraging
> relations between the country, and did therefore would not oppose a 
> transfer
> deal.
>

Blood then oil instead of blood for oil?

It still seems to involve very few scruples to me.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

[snips]

> > So instead of 'Brown orders terrorist release for oil deal', a much more
> > convincing scenario is ...
> >
> > 1) The UK government saw transfer of al-Megrahi as beneficial in
> > encouraging
> > relations between the country, and did therefore would not oppose a
> > transfer
> > deal.
> >
>
> Blood then oil instead of blood for oil?
>
> It still seems to involve very few scruples to me.

I agree, but that's standard politics. Much like the USA's, 'pay millions of
dollars and we'll again treat Libya as a member of the international
community". International politics involves give and take, you scratch my
back, I'll scratch yours, turn a blind eye to this, we'll turn a blind eye
to that. The only thing different in this al-Meghari's case is the huge
outpourings of hypocrisy from the diection of the US and the 'blame game'
that's being attached.

In message <4ZTmm.135974$cf6.84138@newsfe16.iad>, Jesse 
writes
>Sure, just one big, happy coincidence ,,, No coordination or ulterior
>motives involved with anyone.

That's called politics.

>Just happened to have worked out where everyone is happy as a clam -
>Except the Lockerbie bombing victims families,
No.... Only the American families... Most of the Non-American families
are happy with the release

> and the large majority of educated populations in civilized countries,
>who see this cheap sham barter deal for exactly what it is.

Yes We agree... The release was only if he stopped his appeal. As all
the educated people of the world now know most of the evidence against
him was dubious (and from US sources) Several of the crucial points of
evidence have been shown to be false.

Had this gone back to appeal it would have been thrown out and the US
discredited (again). More to the point it would have brought up the US
shooting down of the Iranian plane (and the lack of jail time there)

The US has got a good deal. IT can be indignant to keep the dumb masses
like Jesse happy and escape the public humiliation of yet another set of
lies by the US to frame an innocent man.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/