h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, swl...I reckon the Judges know it too. They were asked to decide on the evidence presented - the testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper that al-Megrahi presented to them. They were not asked to examine any of the other evidence. And I'm not talking about stuff dredged up in conspiranoia threads...this is all out there in the mainstream.

No - I'm standing firm on this one.

But, hey...don't take my word for it. Ask Jim Swire. He's the guy who's been closest to the case since...well...since his daughter was murdered.

testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper that al-Megrahi presented to them

->

testimony of Maltese shopkeeper that al-Megrahi bought some baby clothes from him. Full stop.

Ri-ight.

So the Judges *knew* this guy was innocent but convicted him anyway. And just to make sure, passed a recommendation that he serve a minimum of twenty years.

And the first set of Appeal Judges did the same.

And the second set of Appeal Judges were going along with it too.

MacAskill was milking his moment, thinking he was playing the big man on the world stage, trying to emulate Fat Eck. It's backfired on them both. MacAskill is likely to lose his job and he could be followed closely by the grinning one.

Sure. Sure. But do we at least acknowledge Jim Swire's intellect and expertise? He's a better man than either of us.

Hmm. I notice they stopped short of a no confidence vote...

And do you not think that Swire might be a little too close to the subject matter to be objective? Just as MacAskill seriously compromised his objectivity by going to meet a mass murderer in his cell.

The no-confidence vote is a procedural matter and couldn't be raised on day one. The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

It's all kinda irrelevent anyway. Megrahi's innocence or guilt was never what was at question. As it stands, a guilty man was released on emotional grounds. Basically because the State felt sorry for him.

It's worrying when we have Justice Secretaries making huge decisions on such a basis and deferring responsibility to "a Higher Authority" as he put it. If that wasn't a call to allow religious values to take precedence I don't know what is.

That is, indeed, possible about Swire. And that may also be the reason why the British Families Associan - but not the American one - are four square behind him. Only...he doesn't come over that way.

Sure, sure, the judges would usually be the definitive opinion. But......Gulford+Birmingham+Maguire = 17. It can be frightening what happens to justice when politics interferes.

My typing's all to shite today.

>>As it stands, a guilty man was released on emotional grounds. Basically because the State felt sorry for him.


Which is another point. Leaving aside guilt or innocence - that's perfectly reasonable, surely? The man's dying. He's unlikely to 'Do A Saunders'.

Releasing him was a huge political error and if we were looking for justice, that would have been best served by allowing the appeal to follow it's course.

Compassion - let him go and live with his wife & kids nearby. Give him a nurse and an armed guard.

MacAskill will be shitting himself about that. Remember, expert medical testimony said Saunders had incurable Parkinson's (or was it Alzheimers?) and he then made a miraculous recovery. If Megrahi isn't dead by election day, the SNP are screwed.

>>Releasing him was a huge political error

So you're saying MacAskill should be lauded for placing mercy and compassion over political expediency?

Or am I missing some subtlety?

The "mercy & compassion" were the cover for the political expediency surely?

The UK govt wanted him released for trade deals over oil. It was politically expedient to have the Scottish govt take the fall. MacAskill had to release him - once it was announced he was dying, was it ever in any doubt over the next two weeks that he was going to be released?

Do you *really* believe a politician gives a rat's arse about the well-being of a mass murderer?

If MacAskill *really* wanted to demonstrate the independence of the Scottish judiciary and the stature of the devolved govt, he would have told Mandelson and Blair to shove it and kept Megrahi banged up.

Thing is, all that was assigned to a higher power was the method of his death. He's being taken away from the life through illness.

In a later interview on radio four he absolutely would not be drawn no matter the provocation into clarifying that into any particular leaning which I applauded, myself. It's sort of how I feel, being an agnostic sort. Things have been taken out of hands by CIRCUMSTANCES.

At the end of the day, as I said before, I suspect that the law aside, there's far more to the politics of this than the rights or wrongs of the specific situation.

If I was a prisoner in Scotland on appeal, I'd be asking to meet McAskill in person to discuss my appeal. After all, if a convicted terrorist gets such an audience, why can't I?

Also, his surprise at the way Al-Megrahi was lauded at when he returned to Libya, just seemed damning. "But Libya gave us assurances he'd be treated discretely." Yes, a man who has sponsored terrorism, tried to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, encouraged rebellions in all of his neighbours and has imposed dictatorship on his country for 40 years is a man you can trust.

He just looked hopelessly naive and not remotely qualified for the sort of international Realpolitik he tried to engage in.

Talking of which, anyone seen Micawber?

Do you mean Macavity?

He's not there!

RF