Prisoners for oil
August 31, 2009 1:35 PM Subscribe
Leaked documents reveal Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi [previously] was traded to Libya for oil rights.
This post was deleted for the following reason: I know this is a little confusing, but there is an open thread talking about this issue and the way your post is worded makes the whole thing ven more muddled than it needs to be otherwise. -- jessamyn
The evidence against Al Megrahi isn't exactly airtight, in fact it seems flimsy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Gauci
posted by antihostile at 1:38 PM on August 31, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Gauci
posted by antihostile at 1:38 PM on August 31, 2009
That and the fact that he didn't do it. That highly important fact was about to be revealed in a Scottish review of the conviction. It was the PFLPA. The Ayatollah said he would pay anyone who could fill the skies with American blood (i.e. shoot down a US airliner) and then paid them off to blow up an american plane after the deed was done.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:39 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth at 1:39 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hang on, the article is talking about an agreement "under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country." but Megrahi was released. This doesn't seem to be the same thing at all, and that's exactly what the spokesman for the Ministry of Justice says too.
posted by edd at 1:43 PM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by edd at 1:43 PM on August 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
edd raises a good point - it's also worth noting that The Times is quite conservative, and likes nothing more than to fling shit at the Laboru government (even if they practice more restraint than the tabloids or Daily Torygraph). If it turns out that a deal for Megrahi's release was struck by Jack Straw (or anyone else from Westminster) it becomes damning not only for Labour, but doubly so for the SNP, being shown to be (at least when it came to this decision) a mere puppet of the British government.
posted by Dysk at 1:53 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Dysk at 1:53 PM on August 31, 2009
This afternoon we are told that documents will be released to show there was no deal for oil. There is also the suggestion that if the guy got released and the White House knew in advance about it (via documents) and nothing said to prevent it, Obama would be under siege by GOP.
posted by Postroad at 1:53 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Postroad at 1:53 PM on August 31, 2009
The Laboru government is of course the shadowy Japanese cabal that secretly runs Britain.
posted by Dysk at 1:58 PM on August 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:58 PM on August 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
Seconding edd, the document/letters refer to a prisoner transfer agreement that was changed so as not to exclude al Megrahi. This decision was taken in order to help BP with its business in Libya. Al Megrahi was eventually released on compassionate grounds, and not transferred into Libyan custody. The documents aren't really as scandalus as made out, even though the government did bargain away its right to keep custody of al Megrahi for the benefit of business.
posted by Sova at 1:58 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Sova at 1:58 PM on August 31, 2009
There is serious doubt regarding Al Megrahi's guilt. Here is investigative journalist Paul Foot's take from 2001.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2009
I've got a shiny nickel for the first convincing argument supporting these two simultaneous approaches. First, engaging with Libya (as the Americans and the UK Government have done), that's the Libya who apparently commissioned this act, who handed over Megrahi for trial and paid compensation to victims. Second, continuing to hold the man who actually pressed the button, if you believe the court.
Either Libya is a pariah state for this action, but even then there's a case for compassionate release as per the Cabinet Secretary's decision, or they're not, and we should have transferred him back.
Whatever has happened, though, this is a political iceberg.
posted by imperium at 2:13 PM on August 31, 2009
Either Libya is a pariah state for this action, but even then there's a case for compassionate release as per the Cabinet Secretary's decision, or they're not, and we should have transferred him back.
Whatever has happened, though, this is a political iceberg.
posted by imperium at 2:13 PM on August 31, 2009
Wow, that [previously] was framed really poorly, I don't think that kind of editorializing would go over today. Metafilter, you've come a long way.
posted by dunkadunc at 2:21 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by dunkadunc at 2:21 PM on August 31, 2009
Leaked documents reveal Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi [previously] was traded to Libya for oil rights.
No, they bloody well don't. Try reading the already open thread where the self-same Sunday Times article has already been linked and where I and other posters have patiently pointed out, that it's about the prisoner transfer agreement which doesn't apply in this case. Adding a wikipedia link doesn't miraculously put lipstick on this pig.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:22 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, they bloody well don't. Try reading the already open thread where the self-same Sunday Times article has already been linked and where I and other posters have patiently pointed out, that it's about the prisoner transfer agreement which doesn't apply in this case. Adding a wikipedia link doesn't miraculously put lipstick on this pig.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:22 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Or rather, they show that the Labour government tried to trade him. The problem was their scheme was rejected by the Scots government. Abdulbaset al Megrahi was later released on an unrelated matter - his terminal cancer which had not occurred at that time.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:26 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Flitcraft at 2:26 PM on August 31, 2009
No, you didn't get that wrong Artw, the FPP is referencing an earlier thread and has missed the open one.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:28 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Flitcraft at 2:28 PM on August 31, 2009
I understand that Libya also received a 20-year-old pitcher with a rocket arm who has been just shutting down hitters in AAA ball.
posted by brain_drain at 2:31 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by brain_drain at 2:31 PM on August 31, 2009
I'm still kind of scratching my head at why anyone would want to do this. Because, seriously, fuck that guy if he did it, and if he didn't then this is not the approach for rectifying that. Possibly I have been in America too long and have become infected with the obsession with vengeance over justice, but I'm not sure too many Brits think this is a good idea either.
posted by Artw at 2:33 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Artw at 2:33 PM on August 31, 2009
Point of information for Americans:
The British parliament is run by Labour.
The Scottish parliament is run by the Scottish National Party.
Labour and the Scottish National Party hate each others' guts. In fact, Labour is the main opposition party in Scotland.
Therefore, it's highly unlikely that Labour politicians in Westminster would ask the SNP regional government to cooperate with them in an act of foreign policy experiency.
More likely: Labour would have liked to use al Megrahi's repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement to defuse the oil headache with Libya, but two years ago when they raised the matter the Scottish government said 'no'.
Fast-forward to a cancer diagnosis and the situation changes, with the usual compassionate release of a prisoner with a terminal illness.
The Times is a Murdoch rag and strongly partisan for the Conservative party. The spin on this story is so strong it's almost smoking.
posted by cstross at 2:34 PM on August 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
The British parliament is run by Labour.
The Scottish parliament is run by the Scottish National Party.
Labour and the Scottish National Party hate each others' guts. In fact, Labour is the main opposition party in Scotland.
Therefore, it's highly unlikely that Labour politicians in Westminster would ask the SNP regional government to cooperate with them in an act of foreign policy experiency.
More likely: Labour would have liked to use al Megrahi's repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement to defuse the oil headache with Libya, but two years ago when they raised the matter the Scottish government said 'no'.
Fast-forward to a cancer diagnosis and the situation changes, with the usual compassionate release of a prisoner with a terminal illness.
The Times is a Murdoch rag and strongly partisan for the Conservative party. The spin on this story is so strong it's almost smoking.
posted by cstross at 2:34 PM on August 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
I don't know much about this topic, but it seems like a rather un-nuanced post
posted by Think_Long at 2:34 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Think_Long at 2:34 PM on August 31, 2009
Also if the wording of the FPP is explicitly incorrect we should probably ask for it to be changed, or maybe just shut down the thread.
posted by Artw at 2:34 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Artw at 2:34 PM on August 31, 2009
Wait, isn't trading a terminally ill guy for a large amount of oil a really good deal?
posted by kickingtheground at 2:44 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by kickingtheground at 2:44 PM on August 31, 2009
I've flagged it as a double, I hope that's right for something too close to an already open thread, where the main link has already been posted in the comments and dissected.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:45 PM on August 31, 2009
posted by Flitcraft at 2:45 PM on August 31, 2009
« Older How to fit a Round Peg into a Square hole | Sheila Lukins (1942-2009) Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:38 PM on August 31, 2009