WTF is this all about ? 😯 :

The top US military officer has joined in condemning Scotland's release of Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset al-Megrahi

This is not issue military issue in any way whatsoever. And who the **** does Admiral Mike Mullen think he is to interfere in the juridical processes of another independent sovereign state ?

I wasn't aware that the United States was a quasi-military state where an unelected general staff interfered in civilian juridical processes. Perhaps the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff should concentrate on trying to figure out why the armed forces of his 'rich and powerful' country can't subdue poor weak third world countries, instead of interfering in civilian issues.

Still that's their problem, in the meantime, I suggest Admiral Mike Mullen ***** off and minds his own ******* business 8)

I wasn't aware that the United States was a quasi-military state where an unelected general staff interfered civilian juridical processes.

Well, you are now.

US military officers have a long history of being a little more 'political' than those of many other military forces. Those of the UK military for instance usually keep their noses out of politics.

Its all part of the big American blend of religion, government and guns.

This is not issue military issue in any way whatsoever. And who the **** does Admiral Mike Mullen think he is to interfere in the juridical processes of another independent sovereign state ?

Not sure he's interfering. Commenting yes, but how exactly is he altering the outcome of the process? Nobody is interfering with it, not even the Scottish parliament as the decision has been made, the horse has flown the coup and spilled the milk without closing the door behind it nor counting it's chickens. Or something.

Not sure he's interfering

Well I would call it interfering. Sure he hasn't sent his troops to have the Scottish Justice Secretary arrested, but just by commenting, this would generally be regarded as interfering.

Perhaps those outraged US residents could hire some Russian teabag fondlers to tidy up this loose end?

According to the Times, when Holyrood were deciding whether to release Al-Megrahi some idiot shouted "FREEDOM" so I once again blame Mel Gibson.

Of course the Libyans could have helped out by not having a mini Notting Hill carnival at Tripoli airport on his arrival. Strange, though, that if the US were so keen to get their hands on him they didn't try the extradition because, as we all know, the British government requires almost no paperwork from the US to get someone sent over there.

"Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated."

McAskill's statement is rather good. I agree with most of it without reservation. The entire situation is tragic, but McAskill has certainly not done the wrong thing.

Scotland is not part of England and we have nothing to do with them. 👿

That is until a Scotish athlete wins a gold medal or Wimbledon then they are British/English again. 😀

Unless Obama says something on tv with Sanctions I wouldn't worry about it but they are not going to tell us the real reason for release.

If I was Gordon Brown I'd stay quiet and neutral. 😆

The Scotish Parliment issued their right. End of. 😉

Gaddafi is not going to give him back anyway. 😈

Of course the Libyans could have helped out by not having a mini Notting Hill carnival at Tripoli airport on his arrival.

Ture, but look at it this way: if a Scottish/British citizen was imprisoned in a Libyan jail, for a crime that no one in the UK believed he committed, then do you not think there would be a few Saltire/Jacks waved at the Prestwick airport if Libya set him free?

McAskill's statement is rather good. I agree with most of it without reservation. The entire situation is tragic, but McAskill has certainly not done the wrong thing.

+1 to that. An excellent, well-worded statement that did a good job of explaining a difficult decision. Sadly most folk won't bother reading it and he'll probably be forced to resign.

We need to know what this oil deal is all about and whether there was a compromise to the judicial system for commercial gain

Senator Ben Cardin

Not sure if ive taken this out of context, but is an american really becoming indignant over commercially beneficial oil deals and compromises in a judicial system????? Pot, Kettle, etc etc.

As a Scot I find the comments on this thread quite heartening after most of the rabid mainstream coverage. 🙂

Wha's like us?

Gaddafi is not going to give him back anyway.

Quite. It must still be slow news time given how much coverage this is getting – he's back in Libya, end of. What exactly is the point in debating this now? Are there lots more terrorists in Scottish jails who's fate depends on what everybody eventually decides should have happened?

For that matter, aren't the septics calling for a boycott somewhat missing the point of such action? Exactly what is it they're asking Scotland to do now in order to call off the boycott? Bring him back from Libya and lock him up again? Or just apologise for getting it wrong?

You're making the classic mistake of assuming there needs to be a logical purpose to a knee-jerk reaction aracer.

The need to do "something" far outweighs any considerations concerning whether or not it is actually appropriate. After the destruction of the Twin Towers a country had to be attacked and bombed; after the bombing to Pan Am Flight 103 someone had to be convicted; and so on ….. such is the nature of knee-jerk reactions.

The difference being that's there's pretty much nothing that anybody can do. The knee-jerk reaction simply consists of lots of bleating, and a bit of tiresome political points scoring.

Anyone care to remember the Yanks shooting down an Iranian airline in Iranian airspace and never apologising for it? They did pay up but "The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened."

Yeah I know it's not the same but where as there is some doubt over Megrahi's involvement in PanAm 103, of Iran 665 there is no doubt.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 (yeah not 100% reliable I know but a useful start point).

Yeah scuttler, Iran Air Flight 655 has already been mentioned on this thread …… I think that double standards by US governments is generally accepted as a given.

justice is seen to be done and the USA is pi55ed off a win win situation then.
Thankfully our justice is somewhat [morally] superior to that of Terrorists, Sharia lawists and the US of A ists.

Ooops sorry I didn't see it mentioned as a searched the threads for 665 and not 655.

MacAskills statement

A politician with spine. He wont last (pity).

Following up my natural pleasure in reading what average americans think i clicked on the link to boycottscotland above to find that the pettiton with it's numerous posts from articulate and witty scotts has been purged and replaced with a non interactive propaganda piece. Land of Democracy indeed.

From the "boycottscotland" page:

…there have been a few British and Scottish individuals who have sent threatening and extremely defamatory messages towards American relatives and friends of the Lockerbie victims.

I guess they don't do "articulate and witty".

(mr MC posting)
I dont have a strong opinion either way on whether he should be released, but a few observations/comments on the wider situation;

I listened to macaskill's speech in its entirety on 5live when he gave it, and it came across as self-aggrandising, pro-devolution rhetoric. He clearly relished his 15 minutes (well closer to 25) of fame, and not releasing megrahi on the british-libyan negotiated Prisoner Release agreement sounded like a deliberate slight to the british (ie English) government. It will be interesting to see how many murderers, rapists and paedophiles are released on compassionate grounds, (and how many have been since devolution), or is the Megrahi release unique?

The US critics and families are clearly of the opinion that Megrahi serving his full sentence in Scotland had been guaranteed as part of the pre-trial organisation.

trade secretary and unelected power behind the throne Lord Mandelson meeting Gaddafi Junior on holiday shortly before the release stinks to high heaven, is impossible to write off or justify despite Mandy's indignant protestations as anything other then part of a trade/release negotiation. Which Gaddafi Junior has embarrassingly announced. We want their oil. We want to sell them everything else they need, now they are no longer a pariah state.

Mandelson seems to accidently meet a lot of powerful people on yachts shortly before government legislation or action occurs (David Geffen and illegal downloaders being punished, Oleg Deripaska and aluminium import tax reductions…)

For those who disagreed with the release; do you realise he would have been released in 2026 anyway? This seems to have escaped the attention of the most rabid Americans who assumed that a "life" sentence meant "until he dies".

And to Mr FC – Megrahis release on compassionate grounds is NOT unique. Previous administrations have made similar orders for less notorious (but potentially more dangerous) offenders such as child molesters. In addition, the Americans made it clear that they did not support the UK-Libyan Prisoner release scheme.

Munqe-chick – Member

It will be interesting to see how many murderers, rapists and paedophiles are released on compassionate grounds, (and how many have been since devolution), or is the Megrahi release unique?

30 applications for release on compassionate grounds, 23 granted. I think some fairly nasty people as well. Murders and sex offenders.

The criteria are less than 3 months to live and no risk of reoffending

druidh, Mr FC? Funk Chick? thats so good, I've told her to change it!

In all the debate Ive heard the question asked about other compassionate releases (been off sick, listen to 5live throughout the day) but I havent heard anyone say that it has been done before, and/or give examples, which is why I asked. Not doubting you*, just highlighting it would be a pretty obvious argument for a spokesperson of the scottish parliament to use to stress their humanitarian credentials, and silence the critics. Seems like an opportunity missed.

*edited for TJ's post: an opportunity which educated STW'ers seem able to take, but professional politicians with hoards of press officers, researchers etc missed again and again.

The US didnt agree with the the prisoner release scheme as they didnt want him releasing. When we negotiated it, who else did it or could it apply to (I'm sure it was negotiated for future political/economic gain with him in mind)? I was also highlighting the fact that macaskill's releasing megrahi, but categorically not on the release scheme (not even "as well as") sounded like politicking when I listened to his speech live. If it's possible to hear gloat and relish, a feeble AM signal was enough to transmit it.

I dont have and havent offered a strong opinion on the rights or wrongs of his release, but sadly I am cynical enough to think that the motives and machinations behind it were driven more by politics than humanity or medicine. If Macaskill is simply a humane, honourable man, then he has been undermined by the actions of others (do you get the impression I'm not a big fan of Mandelson for instance…)

From Mac Askills statement

Prisoner Transfer………………………

………..Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.

“It is for that reason that the Libyan Government’s application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi I accordingly reject.

Seems pretty clear. Prisoner transfer was the wrong method to release him.

The stuff about other compassionate releases was in one of the papers – I can't find it now but I'll keep looking

Just found this on CBS news site :
But, as CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen notes, al Megrahi "was in a Scottish prison subject to Scottish law and that means that Scotland gets to make the final call. Remember, many Europeans don’t care for the way the U.S. dispenses justice, especially when it comes to capital cases. So this is a situation where the tables are turned." 😯

One of the 23 freed on compassionate grounds was a child killer

TJ, the quote you found is what I was getting at,the first sentence sounded like a clear swipe at the UK government for both the policy and implicit promises to the US (dont read this as me being a defender of the government or the policy, just an obverver).

Being used to sitting listening to barristers summing up and jurors decisions maybe I over-interpret speeches, but there was a lot in his style of speech which sounded positively smug, regardless of the words used. Maybe my jaundiced ear but listening to him that was exactly how I interpreted his words, and pictured him with a barely restrained grin as he said them.

Some of the US critics made the point that he should have been compassionately released but kept in Scotland, not sent home. They argue this would have been consistent with the spirit of the quote you highlighted, though there are lots of arguments against it (family, security etc). Its a bit churlish of Gordon Brown to come out all indignant about the nature of Megrahi's return when he himself is happy to provide photo opportunities for a former despot, and he's predictably completely avoided making reference to the release itself.

Its good to hear CBS offering some balance (I can imagine half the Fox network exploding with rage), and thanks for researching the other releases-it is something significant that has been missed in the wider debate. I heard Alex Salmond interviewed and the only evidence he offered for Scotland's heritage of humanity was that they didnt have the death penalty. He could have stopped his critics in their tracks.

For someone with no opinion I appear to be writing essays…

I havent heard anyone say that it has been done before, and/or give examples, which is why I asked

Well Fox News have reported it, so I guess quite a few Yanks must know about it.

Quote from Fox News :

"Compassionate release is an established feature of the British judicial system when a prisoner is near death. According to officials, there have been 30 requests for release on compassionate grounds in Scotland over the last decade, 23 of which were approved."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,540967,00.html

About two thirds of the way down.

BTW as I understand it the 7 who were not approved, were only not approved because the authorities were unconvinced that they within 3 months of death, there were no other reasons as far as I know.

MrMC – then its about how we hear it. I didn't hear the whole speeach just bits- but I take that quote as meaning that because the USA had an expectation he would complete his sentence in Scotland then the prisoner transfer was the wrong thing to do as it would be going against that exectation. remember the trial was pre devolution. However releasing him on compassionate grounds means his sentence is complete and has been completed in Scotland.

Try this site for some hilarious frothing at the mouth by ignorant Americans equating Libya's anti-Islamist relatively secular state and Scotland's independent judicial system with the Taliban et.al.

http://www.topix.net/forum/world/T98VKANS0N3L4A4IG

Muddy dwarf – I don't know whether to thank you or not for that link

Congrats, you Scottish Muslims! Your elected representative just sold your great warrior culture (aka William Wallace)down the drain to kiss face with the Islamofacists in LIBYA, for goodness sakes! How dare you post on an AMERICAN website? Go live under the rock of Socialist appeasement, and hope for forgiveness for YOUR SINS!

How many ignorant errors in one short rant?

I particularly liked this one muddydwarf :

Pit Bull owner
Bethpage, NY

Remember the next time the Luftwaffe is bombing London
you might be on your own
Fu**UK too

Obviously the daft redneck doesn't realise that Britain was indeed on her own, when the Luftwaffe was bombing London.

Because despite it being our darkest hour, our 'great friend and ally' stood back and refused to come to our assistance. Britain very nearly fell, no thanks to the United States.

By the time the Americans themselves were bombed at Pearl Habor, the Blitz was over and the Battle of Britain had been won.

.

I also liked the punter who asked if we would support the release of "IRA bombers, and other assorted terrorists who have murdered your fellow citizens?" Clearly someone who follows events in the UK very carefully 😯

Heather Proud Scot

Judish – Away and boil yir heid – mind tae pull it oot yir erse first though ya skanky thick bawbag!

A rather erudite comment from one of the Scots on there.

I have done my bit for anglo usa relations – pointing out on a couple of blogs like that the Christian thing to do is " turn the other cheek" – all good fun seeing as they invoke christ all the time.

Guys – you wouldn't believe the idiocy displayed on that website, it really does try very hard to confirm that most Americans are ignorant to the point of moronity when it comes to thinking.

Seriously, have a trawl through the site – it keeps me occupied for hours sometimes (i need a life!)

it really does try very hard to confirm that most Americans are ignorant to the point of moronity when it comes to thinking

The thing is that if the same was happening the other way round, there'd be just as many stupid comments from people from the UK – let's not fool ourselves here…

Clubber, it's not just about the McAskill decision though.
Have a trawl through that site, it's full of thousands upon thousands of threads – most of which are populated by some really ignorant and stupid people from the US and beyond.
I started on that site in the run up to the US election as a way of finding out how Americans were thinking. The fanaticism from some parts is astounding, there are people on there CONVINCED that Pres.Obama is an African-born Muslim dictator?????

I started on that site in the run up to the US election as a way of finding out how Americans were thinking.

Yeah, but don't get carried away believing that's how all Yanks think.

Because whilst there might well be "people on there CONVINCED that Pres.Obama is an African-born Muslim dictator"" don't forget that the guy won the presidential elections – so a fair few Americans liked him then.

Perhaps it should also be remembered that whilst there are undoubtedly a great deal of ignorant religious right-wing fanatics in the US, who are always inevitably baying for blood and revenge, the opposite is also true. For example roughly a third of the US states have no death sentence, and of those who have, I believe the majority do not carry out the execution, eg. iirc California has some 600 plus on death row, but only about a dozen have been executed in the last 30 years.