Neo Cortex said:Care to elaborate? He was seen by British doctors in a British prison. No Intelligence Service in the world can fake an X-ray taken by someone else
Isn't it just amazing what politics can do?
Neo Cortex said:Care to elaborate? He was seen by British doctors in a British prison. No Intelligence Service in the world can fake an X-ray taken by someone else
MacAskill defied rules on release
Lockerbie bomber’s length of sentence ignored
Published Date: 30 August 2009
By Eddie Barnes Political Editor
KENNY MacAskill was facing mounting pressure over his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber last night amid further claims he acted against official guidelines.
The justice secretary allowed Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to walk free despite guidance stating that the bomber's 27-year minimum sentence should have been taken into account. MacAskill will now appear before the Scottish Parliament this week where he could face a joint vote from opposition parties condemning his decision.
Documents obtained from the Scottish Prison Service show that before granting compassionate release, the authorities should consider "the length of the sentence outstanding, the effect on the overall sentence if early release is granted and any comments that the trial judge made on sentencing which may have a bearing on the question of early release".
In 2001, describing his crime as "horrendous", the High Court judge Lord Sutherland first ruled that Megrahi serve 20 years. Three years later, he increased that to 27 years. Even then, the Crown launched an appeal, claiming that this tougher sentence was too lenient.
When he was released ten days ago, Megrahi had served only eight years.
With polls showing that a majority of the Scottish public opposed the release, it also emerged last night that:
• The UK Government decided to make Megrahi eligible for return to Libya under a separate prison transfer agreement because negotiations with the oil-rich country were reaching a "critical stage". Within weeks of bowing to pressure to Libya and making Megrahi part of the deal, the north African country ratified a deal with BP for exploration rights in the country.
• US Government insiders say they "would have done almost anything" to persuade MacAskill to keep Megrahi in Scottish jurisdiction – including the option of him being freed to live with his family in Scotland.
• Megrahi wants to see a public inquiry into his case, and is promising to write an autobiography setting out his version of events.
The Scottish Parliament will hold a full debate on the decision on Wednesday, when MacAskill is likely to argue that freeing Megrahi was the only real alternative, and he had received the backing of the prison service, the parole board and government officials.
The SNP Government will also point out that the same SPS guidance instructed MacAskill to consider whether keeping Megrahi in jail would have shortened his life span, as doctors feared.
But the new revelation about the sentencing guidelines comes after doubts were raised last week about whether the medical evidence required to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds was conclusive.
The same SPS guidance stipulates that a life expectancy of around three months is "an appropriate time" to consider release. Dr Andrew Fraser, the Prison Service's director of health told MacAskill on 10 August that three months was a "reasonable estimate" in Megrahi's case. However, it also emerged that four consultants who had been involved in his case had been "not willing" to offer a prognosis.
Richard Baker, Labour's justice spokesman, said: "It looks increasingly as if Mr MacAskill made up his mind to release Megrahi and then tried to marshal evidence and paperwork to justify it."
Scotland on Sunday also understands that, in the days before Megrahi's release, the US government "tried everything" to persuade MacAskill to keep the bomber in Scotland.
MacAskill told the Scottish Parliament last week that he had ruled out the option, because of the "severe" problems it would have caused the police.
However, UK Ministers were also under fire last night as it emerged they had gone back on a pledge made to the SNP Government to keep Megrahi out of a prison transfer agreement with Libya. They switched their position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included in the agreement.
In December 2007, Straw wrote to the SNP: "The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the (prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. UK officials last night said the matter was "academic" because MacAskill last week turned down the Libyan request for Megrahi to return under the agreement, choosing instead to release him on compassionate grounds.
tomahawk6 said:The real losers are the families of the dead.
CIA Interrogators Did Not Cross the Line
By Thomas Sowell
Britain's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi-- the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people-- is galling enough in itself. But it is even more profoundly troubling as a sign of a larger mood that has been growing in the Western democracies in our time.
In ways large and small, domestically and internationally, the West is surrendering on the installment plan to Islamic extremists.
The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."
He wrote this long before Barack Obama became President of the United States. But this administration epitomizes the "concessions and smiles" approach to countries that are our implacable enemies.
Western Europe has gone down that path before us but we now seem to be trying to catch up.
Still, the release of a mass-murdering terrorist, who went home to a hero's welcome in Libya, shows that President Obama is not the only one who wants to move away from the idea of a "war on terror"-- as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.
The ostensible reason for releasing al-Megrahi was compassion for a man terminally ill. It is ironic that this was said in Scotland, for exactly 250 years ago another Scotsman-- Adam Smith-- said, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
That lesson seems to have been forgotten in America as well, where so many people seem to have been far more concerned about whether we have been nice enough to the mass-murdering terrorists in our custody than those critics have ever been about the innocent people beheaded or blown up by the terrorists themselves.
Tragically, those with this strange inversion of values include the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder. Although President Obama has said that he does not want to revisit the past, this is only the latest example of how his administration's actions are the direct opposite of his lofty words.
It is not just a question of looking backward. The decision to second-guess CIA agents who extracted information to save American lives is even worse when you look forward.
Years from now, long after Barack Obama is gone, CIA agents dealing with hardened terrorists will have to worry about whether what they do to get information out of them to save American lives will make these agents themselves liable to prosecution that can destroy their careers and ruin their lives.
This is not simply an injustice to those who have tried to keep this country safe, it is a danger recklessly imposed on future Americans whose safety cannot always be guaranteed by sweet and gentle measures against hardened murderers.
Those who are pushing for legal action against CIA agents may talk about "upholding the law" but they are doing no such thing. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Geneva Convention gives rights to terrorists who operate outside the law.
There was a time when everybody understood this. German soldiers who put on American military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge were simply lined up against a wall and shot-- and nobody wrung their hands over it. Nor did the U.S. Army try to conceal what they had done. The executions were filmed and the film has been shown on the History Channel.
So many "rights" have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.
That should be especially obvious if you are part of an international network bent on killing Americans. But bending over backward to be nice to our enemies is one of the many self-indulgences of those who engage in moral preening.
But getting other people killed so that you can feel puffed up about yourself is profoundly immoral. So is betraying the country you took an oath to protect.
Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi is comatose, near death and likely to take secrets of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 to his grave.
CNN found al-Megrahi under the care of his family in his palatial Tripoli villa Sunday, surviving on oxygen and an intravenous drip. The cancer-stricken former Libyan intelligence officer may be the last man alive who knows precisely who in the Libya government authorized the bombing, which killed 270 people.
"We just give him oxygen. Nobody gives us any advice," his son, Khaled al-Megrahi, told CNN ....