US = High N Mighty ?

Diesel said:
It wasn't a UK decision, it was a Scottish decision and was made purely to stick two fingers up to the Westminster government.

It was also a disgrace.
Click to expand...

It also could have been blocked by Westminster if they so wished
 
Even the US army and Marine Corps often reflect the country they come from: it all seems to be high-fives, swearing and indiscriminate gunfire.
 
bam0 said:
I'm more inclined to believe that the Scots got medical advice that al-Megrahi would be dead in a few months and acted like petulant children by using their power to free him to spite the UK government in a bizarre power trip.
Click to expand...

How exactly did the Scottish Government act petulantly? In fact it acted properly upon the professional medical opinion it received and followed the established procedure for compassionate release. If you want an example of petulance, then look no further than the UK Government negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement with Tripoli without even notifying the Scottish authorities under whose jurisdiction Megrahi was being held.

It wasn't the Scottish Government that was out of order.
 
One of the (speculative) reasons for Megrahi's release was that he had enough evidence for his second appeal to clear his name. This would make the entire case more complicated.

Wiki
 
Haiku said:
How exactly did the Scottish Government act petulantly? In fact it acted properly upon the professional medical opinion it received and followed the established procedure for compassionate release. If you want an example of petulance, then look no further than the UK Government negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement with Tripoli without even notifying the Scottish authorities under whose jurisdiction Megrahi was being held.

It wasn't the Scottish Government that was out of order.
Click to expand...

That's kind of my point, sure the UK Government was probably being over bearing basically forcing a prisoner transfer agreement on the Scottish, and as such they reacted by using the power they had to release him instead. The thing is had the PTA gone through instead al-Megrahi would still be in prison, just a Libyan one instead and we wouldn't be facing this furore now.
 
rypt said:
Only via powers granted to it from Westminster, powers that can be removed ...
Click to expand...

Yes, but the political fallout from that would be much, much worse than the fallout we are currently getting from the prisoner release.
 
bam0 said:
That's kind of my point, sure the UK Government was probably being over bearing basically forcing a prisoner transfer agreement on the Scottish, and as such they reacted by using the power they had to release him instead.
Click to expand...

The Scottish Government couldn't and didn't initiate Megrahi's release. It was Megrahi himself who applied for compassionate release and it was the Scottish Justice Minister who was handed the unenviable task of making the decision. He made his decision based upon the professional medical advice he received. How that could be described as acting petulantly, I fail to understand.
 
platypus said:
Makes me think back to an article I read this morning.


The US has accused Pyongyang of engaging in "provocative" behaviour and has announced new sanctions against it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10736538​

The hypocrisy of the United States behaviour beggars belief. I'm more than a little sick of them myself.
Click to expand...

Yep I fully agree and the drills they are going to be doing off the East coast of Korea are hardly non-provocative. I was half hoping that China would side with the North Koreans and have their own drill off the West coast just to annoy the US/South Koreans
 
Haiku said:
The Scottish Government couldn't and didn't initiate Megrahi's release. It was Megrahi himself who applied for compassionate release and it was the Scottish Justice Minister who was handed the unenviable task of making the decision. He made his decision based upon the professional medical advice he received. How that could be described as acting petulantly, I fail to understand.
Click to expand...

He was handed an opportunity to exercise authority without input from Westminster and probably imagined it a coup for showing Scottish self determination and compassion, and now it bites him in the ass he's not so keen to talk about it. I'm not claiming this is exactly what happened but I'm surprised you can't even see it as plausible.
 
RDM said:
As far as I am aware there has never been any hint at all of the US government funding the IRA. Plenty of US citizens doing it, but the government itself was never involved or even rumoured to be involved.
Click to expand...

Thats sort of the point, the federal government took "not getting involved" to something of an extreme. They largely turned a blind eye to various fund raising activities.
 
Yet have they been asked why they helped fund IRA during the height of the troubles? No.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to learn thier history.

The US also felt Lady Thatcher’s firm hand. Washington had refused to allow the export of revolvers intended for use by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

It said it did not wish to take sides in the Northern Irish conflict, which prompted anger from Lady Thatcher over Irish-American links to the IRA.

The prime minister accused the US of "financing terrorism” and said they “must be brought to face the consequences of their actions."

She raised the issue in a later meeting with Jimmy Carter, then president.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware there has never been any hint at all of the US government funding the IRA.
Click to expand...

Good ol' Maggie obviously has a different opinion!
 
The terrorist was released because he was no longer a danger to anyone and he was just about dead.

We should not sete our level of compassion against a terrorist's, that's daft. We should measure it / form it against our own moral standard, therefore keeping the moral authority and remaining clearly the better human beings. But Johnny thicko public doesn't understand that of course.
 
bam0 said:
He was handed an opportunity to exercise authority without input from Westminster and probably imagined it a coup for showing Scottish self determination and compassion, and now it bites him in the ass he's not so keen to talk about it. I'm not claiming this is exactly what happened but I'm surprised you can't even see it as plausible.
Click to expand...

He was given a pretty horrendous decision to make and was doomed to upset many people whatever his choice. I doubt he viewed it as a blessing.

Either way, I think what's most unfortunate is that these US Senators are now cynically using it to their own political advantage and meanwhile the serious questions about Lockerbie remain unasked.
 
britboy4321 said:
The terrorist was released because he was no longer a danger to anyone and he was just about dead.

We should not sete our level of compassion against a terrorist's, that's daft. We should measure it / form it against our own moral standard, therefore keeping the moral authority and remaining clearly the better human beings. But Johnny thicko public doesn't understand that of course.
Click to expand...

He is responsible for the deaths of hundreds

He should have died in prison.

but I do have low moral standards ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom