Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber can live on for a decade.

[j93]

Do we have any evidence for this truly extrordinary claim that the judge rendered his decision based on the influence of lobbyists (or government officials who were influenced by lobbyists)?

It is damn near impossible to prove this claim even if it did happen.

It is pretty much equivalent to 3 people(A,B,C) playing "im thinking of a number" (never write down this number but only keep it in person A's head) where two of them are friends (A,B) and the third is a random person and the friend (B) wins. Its not possible to know if B really picked the right number or person A just said it was the right number.
Assuming person A doesn't just come out and admit what happened truthfully.

 

[NeoDevin]

It is damn near impossible to prove this claim even if it did happen.

It is pretty much equivalent to 3 people(A,B,C) playing "im thinking of a number" (never write down this number but only keep it in person A's head) where two of them are friends (A,B) and the third is a random person and the friend (B) wins. Its not possible to know if B really picked the right number or person A just said it was the right number.
Assuming person A doesn't just come out and admit what happened truthfully.

If they communicated by email or text message, it might be provable.

 

[edward]

BP admits that they lobbied for the release. The man was released. I don't need anymore proof that BP was involved. It may have been legal, but certainly not honorable.

http://www.examiner.com/x-58460-Pho...e-rogue-admits-lobbying-for-alMegrahi-release

BP previously admitted to working for a 2005 Libyan prisoner release, and U.S. Lawmakers demanded to know whether the company had anything to do with a similar deal for Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Al-Megrahi is the only person ever convicted for the airliner bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. He remains a celebrity in Libya a year after he left prison with 3 months to live.

The company cracked just before 4:00 PM Phoenix time. BP admitted that they lobbied the British government to transfer al-Megrahi in order to protect a $900 million deal for Libyan oil. That becomes blood money, plain and simple.

 

[rootX]

BP admits that they lobbied for the release. The man was released. I don't need anymore proof that BP was involved. It may have been legal, but certainly not honorable.

http://www.examiner.com/x-58460-Pho...e-rogue-admits-lobbying-for-alMegrahi-release

Note that you did not directly quote BP

 

[edward]

Note that you did not directly quote BP

You are looking for what?? A direct first person confession by BP?

BP’s statement on Thursday repeated earlier acknowledgments that it had promoted the transfer agreement to protect a $900 million offshore oil-and-gas exploration deal off Libya’s Mediterranean coast. The British justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, admitted after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the review of his case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16britain.html?_r=1

 

[j93]

If they communicated by email or text message, it might be provable.

They would be idiots to do that, even the corner crack dealer doesn't keep a notebook where he writes "Tuesday: a crack rock sold to Tosh. Wednesday: Pick up illegal amount of heroin"

 

[Office_Shredder]

Pick up illegal amount of heroin"

As opposed to the legal amount of heroin

People keep electronic records of some pretty stupid things, so it wouldn't surprise me if there we emails (probably not text messages though, that seems like a pretty informal way to commit conspiracy). Even if they did email each other, there would be no way for us to know about it

 

[mheslep]

It is not clear yet that BP acknowledged this...

More important is the fact that the British foreign secretary did acknowledge the oil deal influence; it was he who approved (at least tacitly) the repatriation. The BP scoundrels could only lobby. It was government that actually reached into the prison and released the murderer under false pretence.

Jack Straw, admitted shortly after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the government’s review of his case.

 

[rootX]

It is not clear yet that BP acknowledged this.

15 July 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south+scotland-10645909




I believe PTA and lockerbie bomber are not related.

You are looking for what?? A direct first person confession by BP?



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16britain.html?_r=1

See the above post. BP did not confess.

 

[mheslep]

Worse yet: WaPo says yesterday, buried down in the 9th paragraph, that the Obama administration went along:

A source familiar with BP negotiations at the time said BP kept the U.S. government informed of its discussions with Libya and the United Kingdom, including talks about prisoner releases. BP had also hired Mark Allen, a Middle East expert and veteran of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, and other former British government experts to help talks with Libya.

"The Libya deal was done with the full blessing of the U.S. government," said the source, who sought anonymity to preserve his business relationships. "There was always a policy of no surprises with the U.S. government."

Now the source is unidentified, but if true those in the US responsible can board the same specially prepared airplane I recommended above for Shah and BP, say one with a lot of cracks in the wings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071506546.html?hpid=topnews

 

[j93]

As opposed to the legal amount of heroin

The amount for a intent to sell charge.

 

[edward]

See the above post. BP did not confess.

Actually I used the word confess as an intentional exaggeration because you seemed to want a direct quote from BP. But then you knew that.

The link in the above post was my link and among other things states:

BP’s statement on Thursday repeated earlier acknowledgments that it had promoted the transfer agreement to protect a $900 million offshore oil-and-gas exploration deal off Libya’s Mediterranean coast. The British justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, admitted after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the review of his case.

It leaves no doubt that BP was involved in the lobbying.

 

[russ_watters]

BP admits that they lobbied for the release. The man was released. I don't need anymore proof that BP was involved. It may have been legal, but certainly not honorable.

That may satisfy you, but that's not evidence that would satisfy any legal standard. Proof of a coincidence is not proof of causality. You need direct evidence that the judge made his decision based on the lobbyist's influence.

 

[russ_watters]

More important is the fact that the British foreign secretary did acknowledge the oil deal influence; it was he who approved (at least tacitly) the repatriation. The BP scoundrels could only lobby. It was government that actually reached into the prison and released the murderer under false pretence.

Still not enough.

The bottom line here is that a judge (not "the government") ordered this release and he had in hand testimony that made it allowable (the 3 months to live prediction). In order to prove that the release was known to be improper at the time, you have to gain some insight into what was going on in that judge's head that influenced his decision.

Right now all we have is the coincidence that lobbying happened - but so what? Lobbying always happens!

 

[mheslep]

Still not enough.

The bottom line here is that a judge (not "the government") ordered this release and he had in hand testimony that made it allowable (the 3 months to live prediction). In order to prove that the release was known to be improper at the time, you have to gain some insight into what was going on in that judge's head that influenced his decision.

Right now all we have is the coincidence that lobbying happened - but so what? Lobbying always happens!

At the moment I'm not concerned about the judge or the legal aspects. I doubt anything illegal occurred here. I find the fact that the British foreign secretary and some officials in the US government gave their 'blessings' for the release of the bomber, in secret, appalling and repugnant.

 

[edward]

That may satisfy you, but that's not evidence that would satisfy any legal standard. Proof of a coincidence is not proof of causality. You need direct evidence that the judge made his decision based on the lobbyist's influence.

I wasn't tryiing to prove a legal issue. We will probably never know the judges motivation. My point was that the admitted lobbying itself was not an honorable thing to do.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, not a legal issue, just one for which anyone involved should be dealt with as Munaẓẓamat Aylūl al-aswad (Black September) was. They are beyond the law, so "send in the boys".

 

[russ_watters]

My point was that the admitted lobbying itself was not an honorable thing to do.

What is dishonorable about it?

 

[Cyrus]

What is dishonorable about it?

Seriously?

 

[nismaratwork]

Russ: What Cyrus said... if that isn't dishonorable, what IS?!

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously?

Yes.

Russ: What Cyrus said... if that isn't dishonorable, what IS?!

C'mon guys, no games. If it is so obvious to you, then you shouldn't have a difficult time explaining it.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes. C'mon guys, no games. If it is so obvious to you, then you shouldn't have a difficult time explaining it.

It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.

 

[nismaratwork]

It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.

Yeah, what he just said. This seems like a burden-of-proof issue for you Russ_Waters; I think most people would consider that 11 days served per murder would be a very light sentence, especially with a profit motive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is dishonorable about it?

Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?

 

[nismaratwork]

Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?

I like my racist hot dogs with extra sauerkraut. Sorry, just trying to inject some levity into a really depressing topic. I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than a miscarriage of justice, and a slap in the face of international courts and law. There is nothing to be done now, that would not endanger Libyan-International relations.

 

[j93]

What is dishonorable about it?

This is how you know you have reached libertarian nirvana

 

[Cyrus]

This is how you know you have reached libertarian nirvana

Come again? You'll have to explain that one to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?

Don't make assumptions beyond what I say, Ivan. I didn't say I support the action - I certainly at least fnd it uncouth - I just find the term "dishonorable" to be a very odd word choice.

 

[russ_watters]

It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.

I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

 

[Cyrus]

I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

I would probably replace that word (which would better represent a person, not a company) with 'lack of integrity,' or, maybe, unscrupulous.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

Is this really an issue to get semantic about? REALLY?

 

[Cyrus]

Is this really an issue to get semantic about? REALLY?

Chill out man.

 

[russ_watters]

Is this really an issue to get semantic about? REALLY?

I force people to be precise about their word usage and definitions, not to mention scientific principles - I do it on purpose and I'm actually proud of it. If people see it as being pedantic, so be it. But a great many of the discussions had in the politics forum in particular come down to arguments over definitions/word usage. I'm sure you can think of several recent and big issues of definitions, such as "murder" and "terrorism". Over in philosophy, we have "random" and "supernatural" in the same thread.

"Honor" is overused word and I want people to be clear about what definition they are using. The fact that no one has yet given a clear/concise definition of the word itself is telling. People have just repeated what BP has apparently done, which isn't in dispute, as if that answers the question.

 

[Tsu]

I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

But, Russ. YOU chose the word. See post #88.

Here is your clear/concise definition of the word -
Dishonor: Lacking integrity; unprincipled

 

[russ_watters]

But, Russ. YOU chose the word. See post #88.

The post I was responding to said "not an honorable thing to do" which is basically the word dishonorable broken apart.

Here is your clear/concise definition of the word -
Dishonor: Lacking integrity; unprincipled

One thing odd about the dictionary definitions is that "honor/ honorable" and "dishonorable" don't look like exact opposites. Honorable tends to imply honesty. The first definition of honor is honest/fairness. But the "unprincipled" definition tends to fit better.

I think also my issue has to do with personification as Cyrus said. Like I said - it just seems an odd word to apply to a company to me. And it is a word often overused, like "hero".