White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

I find this sickening. Aww, you mean a mass-murderer was going to have to die of cancer in prison? How terrible. :doh:

[URL="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041"]White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi | The Australian[/URL]

[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7909248/US-preferred-compassionate-release-of-Lockerbie-bomber-says-Alex-Salmond.html"][/URL]

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

Well they were fine with him dying in Scottish prison, just not Libyan. For what reason I'm not sure. I'm sure Libyan prison systems are more harsh and also probably more susceptible to bribe-releases. Or maybe it's due to him not receiving decent care in a Libyan prison, which would be less palatable for me to accept. I wouldn't mind seeing the letter because it can sway either way.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=tryfuhl;714067]Well they were fine with him dying in Scottish prison, just not Libyan. For what reason I'm not sure. I'm sure Libyan prison systems are more harsh and also probably more susceptible to bribe-releases. Or maybe it's due to him not receiving decent care in a Libyan prison, which would be less palatable for me to accept. I wouldn't mind seeing the letter because it can sway either way.[/quote]

I'm guessing they want to ship gitmo detainees to libya. Regardless, the Scotts are free to do as they please and the article title is misleading.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=saden1;714086]I'm guessing they want to ship gitmo detainees to libya. Regardless, the Scotts are free to do as they please and the article title is misleading.[/quote]

After reading a few articles about this, I agree that the article title is a bit misleading. It's not like Obama and Co said, "hey, let the guy go." It still doesn't sit well with me that they weren't overly opposed to "compassionate release," and it doesn't excuse The Lord's BS about being "surprised, disappointed, and angry" about his release. He knew what was coming. Otherwise he and his ilk wouldn't be trying to keep said correspondence secret.

But hey, BP now gets to drill off of Libya. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=GMScud;714066]I find this sickening. Aww, you mean a mass-murderer was going to have to die of cancer in prison? How terrible. :doh:

[URL="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041"]White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi | The Australian[/URL]

[/quote]

Dude, not saying the guy deserves a break, but our current president and the last 3 presidents could be called mass murderers, and with a much larger body count. They can be brought up on war crimes by international law, but since they are presidents will never get nailed.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;714095]Dude, not saying the guy deserves a break, but our current president and [B]the last 3 presidents could be called mass murderers[/B], and with a much larger body count. They can be brought up on war crimes by international law, but since they are presidents will never get nailed.[/quote]I call flat out bullshit. Not Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, or Obama should be called mass murders or war criminals. If I honestly felt the last four presidents were mass murders, I would resign my citizenship and find another country.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

This is just a good example of how other governments view Obama "the community organizer" as a world leader. I'm guessing if we had a stronger pres in office this guy would still be behind bars. Thats just my gut feeling. Even if I'm wrong about that its just another lie Obama has made. I'm loosing count.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=firstdown;714149]This is just a good example of how other governments view Obama "the community organizer" as a world leader. I'm guessing if we had a stronger pres in office this guy would still be behind bars. Thats just my gut feeling. Even if I'm wrong about that its just another lie Obama has made. I'm loosing count.[/quote]

So did Obama back the release or condemn, First and GMScud? It can't be both. I love how you and GMScud manufacture controversy with these bs Obama threads.

Do you guys watch the news -- at all? Or just scour the internet for sh*t to whine about?

Now here's some actual reporting on what Obama said about the release.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/obama.cameron.visit/index.html"]Obama, Cameron blast release of Lockerbie bomber - CNN.com[/URL]

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

I take it you didn't actually read the link in the OP 12th

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=GMScud;714087]After reading a few articles about this, I agree that the article title is a bit misleading. It's not like Obama and Co said, "hey, let the guy go." It still doesn't sit well with me that they weren't overly opposed to "compassionate release," and it doesn't excuse The Lord's BS about being "surprised, disappointed, and angry" about his release. He knew what was coming. Otherwise he and his ilk wouldn't be trying to keep said correspondence secret.

But hey, BP now gets to drill off of Libya. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.[/quote]

The Scotts have laws...the administration can voice its concerns to the Scottish Government but their courts and review boards make the decisions. If they're going to just transfer him it's completely worthless because they will free him. Now if you release him you can a) get oil, b) repatriation the some of Libyan gitmo detainees, c) it never hurts to look merciful, and d) it's not a battle worth fighting due to his impending death and lack of control.


You're confusing the being surprised at the decision that was made vs the knowledge of the choices they have in front of them and your own preferences. So yes, you can be surprised. It's all PR though...it really doesn't mean anything.


Would I have let him go? Hell no, especially if the evidence was overwhelming and he really is guilty. I'd put him in a see through box, put a camera outside that box and broadcast his imprisonment and slow death of cancer on the internet. Do I have to give him cancer medication?

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=12thMan;714157]So did Obama back the release or condemn, First and GMScud? It can't be both. I love how you and GMScud manufacture controversy with these bs Obama threads.

Do you guys watch the news -- at all? Or just scour the internet for sh*t to whine about?

Now here's some actual reporting on what Obama said about the release.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/obama.cameron.visit/index.html"]Obama, Cameron blast release of Lockerbie bomber - CNN.com[/URL][/quote]

You can include SS33 in that list too...it is really getting worse by the day and it's troubling to see their anger take over.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=SmootSmack;714159]I take it you didn't actually read the link in the OP 12th[/quote]

I did, but it's not the link I really have an issue with, it's the title of the thread and ensuing and misleading attacks.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

12th, maybe this is a little of the problem. From the CNN article you linked:
[QUOTE]Obama said most Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" about the decision to let al Megrahi go. "We should have all the facts," he added. "They should be laid out there." The decision "ran contrary to how we should be treating terrorists."[/QUOTE]

contrasted with this quote from the OP article:
[QUOTE]The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.[/QUOTE]

So, do we lay it all out, or prevent the letter's disclosure. If Pres Obama thinks the letter should not be published, then he should state that some facts can't be released at this time, due to the strategic nature of the conversations, or national interests, or what ever he wants to say. But don't tell the national media that all the facts should be laid out, and at the same time have your administration trying to suppress a key letter.

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[quote=12thMan;714157]So did Obama back the release or condemn, First and GMScud? It can't be both. I love how you and GMScud manufacture controversy with these bs Obama threads.

Do you guys watch the news -- at all? Or just scour the internet for sh*t to whine about?

Now here's some actual reporting on what Obama said about the release.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/obama.cameron.visit/index.html"]Obama, Cameron blast release of Lockerbie bomber - CNN.com[/URL][/quote]

That article is months after the fact and is only 6 days old and this happened how long ago. Funny how thay had harsh words but stop at that.

[B]Washington (CNN)[/B] -- U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday blasted Scottish authorities' decision to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber last year and agreed on the need to push for a more transparent disclosure of the circumstances surrounding Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's release.
[B]Cameron, however, said he is opposed to a British government investigation into the release. [/B]

Re: White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber
 

[QUOTE]The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.[/QUOTE]

If you believe the letter exists and the letter's content says we "Megrahi to remain imprisoned" what exactly in this "key letter" is being suppressed?