I've been hearing that some Americans are starting up a "Freedom Fries"-like campaign where they are going to boycott Scotland becuase of the release of the terminally ill convicted Lockerbie Pan-Am flight bomber al-Megrahi. So, I was wondering, particularly from US AGSers:
1. Do you feel anger towards Scotland and should it be punished for letting a convicted terrorist free?
2. Does the fact that many Scottish relatives of those who died think that al-Megrahi didn't actually do it make any difference?
3. Do you think anyone should ever be released on compassionate grounds?
4. If a US citizen is imprisoned abroad (e.g. the lady caught "en flagrante" on the beach in Dubai) , would you support the goverment trying to get them repartiated, perhaps to serve out their term in a US prison?
5. If something is the right thing to do, does a bunch of Libyans turning al-Megrahi in to a hero on his return change its rightness?
A "Freedom Fries"-like campaign? Bring on the Freedom Eggs & Freedom Pancakes. Wrapped up in Freedom Tape!
Sounds quite silly to do another campaign like that for that... I think there might be a hidden "protectionism" campaign in spite a patriotic one. Might be that?
This is the first I'm hearing of it. The whole Freedom Fries thing was stupid, idiotic blind pseudo-patriotism... fear and paranoia shrouded in poor sportsmanship and pointless demands.
I think it was something along the lines of "USA SMASH PUNY DISAGREEING FRANCE!!!", coupled with a health dose of "... but we can't actually take them on, so let's go for something symbolic instead".
It's the same thing here. Good grief, guys, it's not like the guy is going to do any more terrorisin'. At least let him set his affairs in order, and let him die in dignity; no matter somebody's crimes, they're still human. No need to petition people to refer to Scotch as Terror Cocktail from now on, or some equally retarded crap.
Nice! Let's compose a list of renamed Scottish food and drinks!
Scotch -> Terror Cocktail
Haggis -> Evil-Stuffed Parts
Black Bun -> Compassion Cake
Crowdie -> Cheese of Mass Destruction
Hot Toddy -> Warm Traitor
Any more? :P
SSH,
Boycott Scotland? And give up my precious Scotch whisky?* Madness! (You guys can keep the haggis though. Please.) Plus, one of my play testers is from Scotland -- any my game is already too far behind as it is!
But to answer your questions:
1. No. It's silly to feel anger towards a country. I'm not too happy with your government's decision, but it doesn't make me feel anger towards all the Scots. Besides, without you guys, the Highlander movie wouldn't exist. (Best! Documentary! Ever!)
2. Public opinion doesn't always hold much sway with me. Many of my fellow Americans think that 9/11 was an inside job; that we never landed on the moon; that JFK was killed by the FBI; and that we have an alien spaceship hidden in Nevada. To steal a line from Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb..."
3. Only in the rarest circumstances. Do the crime, do the time. I don't care if your mother has run off to be a pirate or you've got boneitis. The crime you committed that landed you in prison affected people with their own share of problems too -- chief amongst those problems, they were victimized by you.
4. Maybe. Depends on the crime. I've spent a substantial part of my life living abroad, where my rights as a US citizen don't add up to diddly poop. So, if I wanted to avoid local prisons, I tried my very best to obey the local laws. My girlfriend's favorite show is "Locked Up Abroad." Every third episode seems to be "How can they send me to prison? All I did was smuggle some opium through their airport. I wasn't even stopping in the country, just changing planes! It's not fair." No sympathy for those idiots at all.
5. Sorry, I reject the premise of the question. I don't think letting al-Megrahi go was the right thing to do. But it wasn't my call to make. The government of Scotland made its decision, and it was theirs to make. But nations, cities, and people make choices all the time I don't agree with. What am I going to do? Boycott the whole world? That would be very silly. Boycotts hardly ever work. Mostly, they're a great way get others to hold a grudge against you.
Besides, where do you stop once you've started? Scotland is part of the UK, which is part of the EU, which is part of the other side of planet Earth. Before you know it, I'm boycotting half the globe. And what does that leave me with? Just Texas, and possibly our neighbors to the north, the (rest of the) United States. ;)
Boycotts are for silly people who have far too much time on their hands (and usually they also have audiences to keep lathered up with outrage).
Besides, why be outraged? I trust the Scots to manage their own affairs. They've given us golf, the decimal point, modern economics (sorry we screwed that up, by the way), Dolly the sheep, and that song we sing every year at New Years (but no one seems to know the lyrics).
Thanks, Scotland!
Now put some pants on, for God's sake.
- Ponch
--------------
* Why no "e" in "whisky." You guys over there stick extra vowels in everything, which we dutifully remove over here. But in this case, we're left in the rather uncomfortable position of "vowel-ing" that word up to size.
Quote from: PonchTo steal a line from Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb..."
I quote that line all the time! It's so true, these days more than ever.
Quote from: TerranRich on Mon 24/08/2009 17:21:58
Haggis -> Evil-Stuffed Parts
Thanks to you, I shall always think of Haggis that way. Especially the haggis that comes in a can.
- Ponch
We're Americans. Even if we did decide to boycott Scotland, we're too dumb and lazy to remember in three weeks. All loathing of other countries is pushed out of our brains after each week of American Idol.
Well, in mittens we saw a "We don't buy french! God bless America!" in an Irish pub... :)
Quote from: Ponch on Mon 24/08/2009 17:30:37
* Why no "e" in "whisky." You guys over there stick extra vowels in everything, which we dutifully remove over here. But in this case, we're left in the rather uncomfortable position of "vowel-ing" that word up to size.
I've been told it actually is "whisky" if it comes from Scotland and "whiskey" if it comes from Ireland. Don't know how real that is around there though. :P
UK: whisky
Canadian: whisky
Kentucky: bourbon whiskey
Irish: whiskey
My dictionary never lets me down. :) Although I'm not too sure what bourbon whisky is....
bourbon |ˈbərbən|
noun
a straight whiskey distilled from a mash having at least 51 percent corn in addition to malt and rye.
Ah, thanks dictionary!
I don't trust Scottish politicians anymore than I trust ours (US). It's very likely this was a payoff to Libya for access to petroleum and other trade deals and that it had nothing to do with prostrate cancer. How much do you want to bet that the SOB in will not be dead in 3 months or even 3 years?
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070817/17prostate.htm
Quote
Prostate cancer is usually a slow-growing disease, which means that many men who have a tumor will nevertheless die from something else, before the tumor spreads and becomes dangerous. Selecting the right treatment, therefore, requires considering both how quickly a particular tumor might kill and how much longer the patient, if cancer free, could expect to live.
Scotland, like many other civilized countries, routinely offers compassionate release to criminals who are dying and who offer no continued threat to society. According to the evidence and testimony presented, this applied to al-Megrahi. Therefore his release was the proper result of impartial, "quasi-judicial" process; the "right decision" according to Scottish law, policy and customs.
Protesting and threatening boycott is a foolish and, frankly, childish response. If anything, the outrage should be directed towards Libya for the way he was received there.
Quote from: RickJ on Mon 24/08/2009 23:03:45
I don't trust Scottish politicians anymore than I trust ours (US).
How do you think the English feel? We have one running our country!
Quote from: Akatosh on Mon 24/08/2009 17:17:36
At least let him set his affairs in order, and let him die in dignity;
Like those at Lockerbie did?
I haven't really been following since the release but my feeling is that being released on compasionate grounds should depend on the severity of the crime, the total sentence and the sentence remaining. Everyones got an opionion on Lockerbie and Briggs because they are the recent high profile ones.. I disagree with both really.
Also, the chance of hime being innocent is an unrelated matter, there are channels for dealing with that - releasing him on the off chance isnt one.
Quote from: TerranRich on Mon 24/08/2009 17:35:06
Quote from: PonchTo steal a line from Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb..."
I quote that line all the time! It's so true, these days more than ever.
I quote the same line but I quote it from Discworld Noir
"An average person is smart, the mass is really stupid."
1. Do you feel anger towards Scotland and should it be punished for letting a convicted terrorist free?
I feel no anger towards Scotland nor do I think Scotland should be punished. It would be ignorant to form one's opinion(s) on an entire country based solely off the actions of the leaders/politicians of that country. If he is guilty I do not think he should be released solely because he's terminally ill but, as Rick suggested above, there's [most likely] far more at play than a simple act of mercy to a dying man.
2. Does the fact that many Scottish relatives of those who died think that al-Megrahi didn't actually do it make any difference?
To me it does make a difference. If the man was not involved, he shouldn't have been in jail in the first place. However, if he had even the smallest involvement in the act, he was where he belonged (in prison).
3. Do you think anyone should ever be released on compassionate grounds?
I try to avoid absolutions ... but if you don't want to die in prison, don't commit a crime that sends you there. There are always circumstances of course but I like to think that there are far more guilty people behind bars than there are innocent/wrongly convicted people.
4. If a US citizen is imprisoned abroad (e.g. the lady caught "en flagrante" on the beach in Dubai) , would you support the goverment trying to get them repartiated, perhaps to serve out their term in a US prison?
Again this depends on the circumstances. If the person was on vacation and was trying to smuggle drugs back (or something like that) I say let 'em rot in the prison of the country that caught them. As I said above; if you don't want to go to prison, don't commit the crime. However ... if they walked on the grass where they weren't supposed to or are being convicted of something (that in the US) isn't a crime I suppose I might take objection to it. Always circumstances though.
5. If something is the right thing to do, does a bunch of Libyans turning al-Megrahi in to a hero on his return change its rightness?
Depends on why they are turning him into a hero. If they are turning him into a hero 'cause he killed all those people and they think he's a hero for it then, to my mind, it's a disgusting example of animal behavior. If they are idolizing the guy 'cause they think he didn't do it (the terrorist act) and he's returning home after 20 years of false imprisonment then I don't see a problem with it. Although I don't really see how being falsely imprisoned, dying of cancer, and then being sent home on compassionate grounds earns him 'hero' status.
Might warrant a "welcome home" sign though ... maybe a party?
FREEDOM FRIES
Yes, this was ignorant. However, this planet is shrouded by clouds of ignorance, they don't just float over the United States.
Quote from: DarthFREEDOM FRIES
Yes, this was ignorant. However, this planet is shrouded by clouds of ignorance, they don't just float over the United States.
Hear-hear.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw admits Lockerbie trade link
"Trade and oil played a part in the decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer deal, Jack Straw has admitted."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8239572.stm
Who would have thought this possible?
Without question Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi will not die from prostrate cancer anytime soon and will live to see 2010. It won't be long before we hear that he has had a miraculous recovery.
That story talks about negotiations back in 2007, and is only saying that Straw agreed not to specifically exclude al-Megrahi from the prisoner transfer (not release) agreement. That's very different from agreeing to actually transfer him, which never happened. Also, these negotiations involved the UK government, not the Scottish one, so its relevance to this decision is speculative at best.
We can't know one way or the other whether international or other political motivations influenced the decision to release al-Megrahi. But in Scottish cases like this that are not as political, it would be normal to grant compassionate release. So if he had not been released, that would most definitely have been a political decision. You can certainly disagree with the policy, but this was not some exceptional favor granted to Libya.
As for whether his terminal illness is faked, that claim seems to be taken out of thin air. He's been diagnosed by Scottish doctors, I guess you're accusing them of lying. If he does die within the next few months, will you apologize?
The bottom line is that Libya wanted the guy released and that was the price of the deal. The UK found a way to release him. The reset will play out over the next several months; I'm still betting that the guy will out live the three months the Scottish doctors gave him to live.
Rick, I was just going to respond that I agree with you how the trade link played a part in the release is really a disgrace, but then I read in a recent article that the British and the Scottish governments are strongly denying such allegations, and I was like, huh.
Furthermore, this is what CNN reports:
Quote
"The overall impression was of a man very weak, unable really to engage in what was going on around him, and coughing quite violently at times," said CNN Senior International Correspondent Nic Robertson, who was able to get close and see him clearly.
"He seemed to be almost too frail to take part in this," he added. "His eyes were glazed over. His eyes closed several times during the four or five minutes he was on stage."
He was wheeled back offstage after the short appearance.
It is rather clear that Scottish doctors diagnosed him with a cancer that has spread to the lymphs and skeletal system, and such cancers usually permit their carriers a quarter of a year to live.
As much as I believe that politics can play a part in protecting/releasing known criminals, I think we must still accept that doctors have made this diagnosis, and that Scottland traditionally carries out compassionate releases.
What you think or bet regarding his chances of survival is not really relevant - people can live beyond a predicted date, and they can die before it.
Quote
It won't be long before we hear that he has had a miraculous recovery.
We'll see!
Andail, I remain very skeptical. My father was diagnosed with prostrate cancer at the age of 78. The first reaction of the oncologist to whom he was referred was to question if treatment was appropriate. This was not because of any sort of rationing or lack of insurance but rather because prostrate cancer develops so slowly (10 years or more) and 78 year old people typically have other medical conditions which would likely cause their demise before the cancer would.
We know of this from my cousin, the urologist who first discovered the cancer and referred my father to the oncologist. He told the oncologist "You'll change your mind when you meet him". Of course he did when dad bounced into the office with the energy and vigor of a 10 year old. He was successfully treated and is still going strong at 89. Btw the survival rate is 90%+ in the US and somewhat lower in the UK.
For this guy to be in this state he would have had to have prostrate cancer several years prior to his incarceration. Prostrate cancer is easily detected by a simple blood test (PSA). I don't know about Scotland but in the US this test is done routinely, on an annual basis for males over 40 years. Are not prisoners given physical exams when they are initially incarcerated and periodically after that? Or is it the case that in Scotland prisoners are denied routine medical care? How is it that the cancer went undetected for so long?
Either the Scottish prison system denies prisoners routine medical care, or the Scottish health system is inept, or political pressure was brought to bear and the health care system, which I understand is run and paid for by the same government, produced the politically desired result. We will know in a few short months.
@ Rick:
My father died this march of prostate cancer (with 66 years). It was discovered around a year before that and the doctors said it was in a very early stage and could be stopped from further growing. But within 1-2 months it suddenly became dangerously life-threatening and then it just happened.
While your statistics can be true there IS a chance that is was discovered late and that it is growing rapidly..
Matti, I am sorry for the recent loss of your father. I'm sure he is greatly missed and my prayers go out to you and your family. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. In light of my father's experience I am surprised of the way your father's situation played out. Your story is a reminder to all of us to never miss an opportunity to spend time with our loved ones and to cherish every minute.
With regard to the thread's topic: Yes, I must agree that there is a chance that al-Megrahi is terminall ill; however, if it is so I will be surprised.
Quote from: RickJ on Fri 11/09/2009 12:59:10
Matti, I am sorry for the recent loss of your father. I'm sure he is greatly missed and my prayers go out to you and your family.
Thanks. While I don't believe in prayers I still greatly appreciate that.
Quote
Your story is a reminder to all of us to never miss an opportunity to spend time with our loved ones and to cherish every minute.
Yeah. While I always was kinda bored when visiting my grandparents before that experience (which was the worst in my 25 years so far), now I'm always happy that they still live.
Edit: Okay, enough Off-topic. It's a rather sad story anyway...
Rick; according to the article, the doctors claimed the cancer had spread to the lymphs and the skeletal system, as I clearly wrote in my previous post.
I'm no doctor, but I'm sure that with that kind of development, the prognosis looks different.
According to a recent article in the Telegraph.co.uk,
Lockerbie Bomber Defies Doctors' Prediction of Death (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6475092/Revealed-Lockerbie-bomber-defies-doctors-prediction-of-death.html), Megrahi is alive and his condition has not deteriorated and that his is in the same condition as when he left.
The article also informs us that three doctors examined Megrahi in jail on July 28, Professor Karol Sikora and Professor Ibrahim Sharif there two doctors who made the claim that he had only 3 months to live, Professor Karol Sikora, Professor Ibrahim Sharif, and an unamed doctor.
Professor Karol Sikora - "Was paid a one-day consultancy fee by the Libyan government to draw up a report delivered two days later. In an interview in September not long after Megrahi's release, Prof Sikora said he was initially "pessimistic" that the experts could say he would survive any less than a year. But Prof Sikora admitted that the Libyans had encouraged him to conclude that Megrahi had just three months to live following his examination. "The figure of three months was suggested as being helpful [by the Libyans]," he said. "To start with I said it was impossible to do that but, when I looked at it, it looked as though it could be done â€" you could actually say that.""
Professor Ibrahim Sharif - "Is a Libyan oncologist from the Tripoli Medical Centre, agreed Megrahi had 'about three months'."
Unamed Doctor - "While one of the doctors in the team that examined him was apparently 'more vague' about putting a limit on Megrahi's life expectancy.."
Other Doctors - "Other doctors have been reluctant to put a specific time-frame on life expectancy in patients suffering prostate cancer. Prof Nick James, professor of clinical oncology at the University of Birmingham, said: "I would not be surprised if Megrahi was still here well into next year. For sure it could be right his condition has not deteriorated." "
The article also says "While the Scottish Executive has insisted they canvassed a wide-ranging number of experts before freeing Megrahi, Prof Sikora's diagnosis is thought to have been critical to the process."
Apparently the other experts didn't give them the news they wanted to hear so they just kept asking until they found a couple of guys who would cooperate and give the right answer. One who was supplied by the Libyan government and another who was paid by the Libyan government.
The three month figure was critical as this was required to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds. I stand by my assertion that the fix was in. As time passes this will become more and more apparent.
The muth$%#@er is still not dead! Man what a surprise . Seems that this was all about BP getting Libyan oil contracts after all. :=
Wikileaks documents (diplomatic communications) reveal that government officials knew 10 months before hand that the fix was in to release the guy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024926-503543.html
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/4453114/lockerbie-justice-takes-backseat/?playlist_id=86925
Quote from: RickJ on Fri 10/12/2010 08:01:07
The muth$%#@er is still not dead! Man what a surprise . Seems that this was all about BP getting Libyan oil contracts after all. :=
Wikileaks documents (diplomatic communications) reveal that government officials knew 10 months before hand that the fix was in to release the guy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024926-503543.html
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/4453114/lockerbie-justice-takes-backseat/?playlist_id=86925
The sky is blue, the grass is green, the pope is catholic. Seriously, anyone with half a brain knew this.
Quote from: Sslaxx on Fri 10/12/2010 10:27:40
The sky is blue, the grass is green, the pope is catholic. Seriously, anyone with half a brain knew this.
My grass is kinda brown.
I just wanted to acknowledge here that unfortunately it looks like Rick was right. Or to be more precise, the evidence increasingly indicates that the Scottish government manipulated the medical diagnosis of al-Megrahi, and did not have a good-faith belief that he was likely to die in the near future when they decided to release him.
I don't find the revelations about Libyan pressure to be particularly incriminating; we knew from before that they wanted him back. And discussions about his release months in advance are not surprising either, since he had already been diagnosed with cancer at that time. To me, the only relevant issue is whether he got (or the government thought he got) an honest prognosis. And on that score, reports from earlier in the year, supported by this latest leak, make the whole thing look decidedly dodgy.
Obviously, if MacAskill and Salmond didn't really think he was about to die, and contrived to release a convicted mass murderer to go live out his life in freedom under a pretext, that is outrageous and scandalous. Just on the strength of the current evidence there should at least be an investigation, and I would want them to resign. No conclusive evidence will ever be found, of course.
Thanks Snarky for the kind remarks.
Quote
... since he had already been diagnosed with cancer at that time.
This is not entirely clear either because:
1) One of the doctors who gave diagnosis and prognosis received a 6 figure payment from the Libyan government.
2) A doctor who had a dissenting opinion was dismissed from the case
3) The medical records have not been released. If they would exonerate the Scottish government and other people involved from nefarious dealings then this information would have been made available to the press one way or an other. The fact that the information has not been released supports the notion that the fix was in.
QuoteTypically a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test is used to screen for prostrate cancer. Values range from 0-10. Young healthy males have a PSA less than 2. As men age their PSA number increases. In addition to cancer an elevated PSA can be due to a number of causes including benign tumor, enlarge prostrate, and others. My father's PSA, for example was 5-6 for many years. It then jumped to 8 over a short period of time (6-12mo). They took pictures, found a half dozen tiny tumors (pencil tip size), did a biopsy, diagnosed him with prostrate cancer, and successfully treated him.
No what if a doctor was told that a patient had prostrate cancer, was shown test result PSA=6-7, x-ray showing an egg sized tumor, and asked how long the patient would live? It may very well be reasonable, based on this information, to give a life expectancy with a few months on the low end even though the tumor was not cancerous.
Just to provide closure to this discussion, I'll bring attention to al Megrahi's recent demise.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/20/world/africa/obit-lockerbie-bomber/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I guess this means the diagnose was pretty legitimate, although it took 2.5 years instead of 3 months for him to actually pass away.
That kind of margin of error isn't untypical in such predicitions.
It was, of course, weird the way (in)famous people seem to die on the same day:
With Robin Gibb and al-Megrahi, one was a person who belonged to an infamous organization and caused suffering to many... and the other was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing...
*Must... resist... Stayin' Alive remark...*
Quote from: Andail on Sun 20/05/2012 16:43:30
I guess this means the diagnose was pretty legitimate, although it took 2.5 years instead of 3 months for him to actually pass away.
He was definitely dying, but as Rick says there's strong reason to believe his release was more about Libyan oil than the ilness:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/16/release-abdelbaset-al-megrahi-mistake.
Though I was surprised that so much of the coverage of his death suggested that he was innocent. I had no idea how many people questioned the original conviction, including some relatives of the Lockerbie victims:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/lockerbie-bomber-abdelbaset-almegrahi-dead-7769459.html
My inner conspiracy theorist doesn't know what to think...