On the Freeing of the Lockerbie Bomber

[Krashkopf]

"A tip of the hat" to Scottish Justice Minister McAskill, and the Scots, who did not let another person's heinous act terrorize them into giving up their own deeply held values of compassion and humanity.

If only we American's had been that strong, and that true to our professed "American values" - of freedom and adherance to the rule of law - after 9/11.

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. They freed an innocent man, who had been framed, and disguised it as a "compassionate release"

to cover their own asses and ours (the US)...

Yeah, those are really "deeply held values of compassion and humanity."

[JohnyCanuck]

11. Saving Scottish justice system from embarrassment.

It is alleged (I think with good reason) that a planned appeal by Megrahi's lawyers was going to show up his conviction for the Pan Am bombing to be a travesty of justice and a frame up, thereby causing much embarrassment and loss of face for the justice system that had allowed itself to be manipulated into convicting an innocent man.

See the many links in this previous DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6375049

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Lockerbie evidence shows grave miscarriage of justice

by Simon Basketter

Abdelbaset Ali al‑Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland and returned to Libya last week.

He was convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded above the Scottish town of Lockerbie 13 years earlier.

Yet there is a huge amount of evidence to support Megrahi’s contention that he is innocent.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on Flight 103, has branded Megrahi’s conviction “one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in history”.

Evidence uncovered by the victims’ families, and the journalists John Ashton, Ian Ferguson and Paul Foot, has consistently shown that Megrahi was innocent and that he was framed to cover up what really happened.

We look at the key questions in the case.

SNIP

British relatives of the victims of Lockerbie, including Martin Cadman, met the US President’s Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism in 1990.

“After we’d had our say,” says Cadman, “the meeting broke up, and we moved towards the door. As we got there, I found myself talking to two members of the commission – I think they were Senators.

“One of them said, ‘Your government and our government knows what happened at Lockerbie. But they are not going to tell you.’”

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18871

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated. The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison. The evidence will form a crucial part of Megrahi's attempt to have a retrial ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The claims pose a potentially devastating threat to the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.

The officer, who was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, is supporting earlier claims by a former CIA agent that his bosses "wrote the script" to incriminate Libya. Last night, George Esson, who was Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway when Megrahi was indicted for mass murder, confirmed he was aware of the development.


The insider said: "He said he believed he had crucial information. A meeting was set up and he gave a statement that supported the long-standing rumours that the key piece of evidence, a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that implicated Libya, had been planted by US agents. "Asked why he had not come forward before, he admitted he'd been wary of breaking ranks, afraid of being vilified. "He also said that at the time he became aware of the matter, no one really believed there would ever be a trial. When it did come about, he believed both accused would be acquitted. When Megrahi was convicted, he told himself he'd be cleared at appeal." The source added: "When that also failed, he explained he felt he had to come forward. "He has confirmed that parts of the case were fabricated and that evidence was planted. At first he requested anonymity, but has backed down and will be identified if and when the case returns to the appeal court."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1732385

[DonkeyHoTay]

75. Google "Lester Knox Coleman" for all the answers anyone needs

They knew he was innocent and this release was long overdue...
Coleman exposed all this years ago and suffered greatly for
his valiant fight for the truth! 

Perhaps we can expect to hear of a miracle cure and recovery
sometime in the future... or never. The non-terrorist
scapegoat may simply be happy to fade quietly into anonymity.

[ashling]

2. thread from the other day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6391653&mesg_id=6391653

[Mika]

3. Hell, we don't even prosecute terrorists living on our own soil.

Do the names Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada ring any bells?

They blew a loaded civilian airliner out of the air with a bomb in 1976 killing all 73 aboard. Now they are both harbored by the US government and walking free in Miami.

[MajorChode]

7. That's an excellent point, but two wrongs don't make a right

The freedom of Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada are what happens when you have people who hate communism more than they respect innocent lives. Those who are responsible for their freedom should be straped to a chair and beaten with hammers.

[kaybea]

70. Pardoned by none other than GHWB. n/t

[Berry Cool]

4. I'm sorry, but I guess I am utterly unlike just about everyone else on DU.

I think the man should have been taken care of, his medical needs attended to, in prison until he died.

I fail to see how this would have been a wretched, uncompassionate, unmerciful thing to do.

He was convicted, yet you will find more belief on DU in general of his innocence than you will find in the innocence of O.J. Simmpson, who was NOT convicted criminally.

I keep reading about how important it was to set that man free for "compassionate" reasons to show that we are "better" than the terrorists, about how it's all about "who we are" versus "who they are." I also keep reading about how his freedom is but a drop in the bucket of righteousness, given that the United States has killed these innocents over here and those innocents over there, and their killers have never been punished, and "nobody even knows or cares about it."

In other words, if the victims of the Lockerbie bombing never get justice, so what--they simply "balance out" all the victims of American terrorism that never got justice. So all's fair, square and even.

You know, how some people think we deserved 9/11 because of all the evil we have visited upon other countries. Our innocents deserved to die as payback for the death of their innocents.

Well, how about this for you: How about a belief that NO innocents deserve to die?

How about a belief that you can't stack up this many unavenged deaths on this side of the ledger and stack up this many on the other side of the ledger and call it even?

Because, see, that's what terrorists do. That's the very DEFINITION of what terrorists do.

And I truly fail to see any difference in being the kind of person who only keeps track of how many innocents are killed in my country and disregarding those killed by my country, and being the kind who only keeps track of how many mine has killed, and disregarding how many of mine have been killed.

In short, there are no innocent countries on this planet--but that doesn't justify terrorism on any of them. Terrorism simply cannot be justified.

It is not fair to kill civilians in the name of payback, or collective national guilt, or just to kill them...whether the United States does it to another country, or another country does it to the United States.

What's more, a lack of apparent justice in one matter cannot be balanced out and made "all better" by a lack of apparent justice in another matter.

The setting free of this man does nothing to avenge a single person wrongly killed by the United States, anytime, anywhere. It doesn't.

A lack of justice for murdered innocents is NEVER OK. Never.

In an ideal world, all killers of innocents would be brought to justice. But "an eye for an eye" or "an injustice for an injustice" or "this terrible thing being done to this country is OK because nobody has punished THEM for when they did terrible things" does not work.

If this man is not guilty, let the justice system clear him. It would actually be a comfort to learn he was, because to think he isn't, yet is free, is almost unbearable.

To me, it's an outrage that he is greeted in his own country as an innocent hero when we still don't know whether he was simply freed, not for compassionate reasons, but for reasons more concerned with his country's oil and gas. (Yes, there is still a question of that.)

I'm not saying he deserved a torturous, slow death with no medical treatment. I'm saying he could have received his care in prison. He could have been visited by his family there. He could have died there, and it would not have been a gross miscarriage of justice. Nor do I think my saying this reveals me to be a person lacking in compassion.

I don't agree with the families of the victims constantly being cited on DU as advocating for his freedom. That's fine for them, but many others like them are aching because they waited for years for even a trial, even a speck of justice for the death of their loved ones. Some of them believe this man was rightly convicted. But now he is free, and in their eyes, their loved ones have in the end received no justice at all. The only way they will be able to cope with this is if they learn that someone else truly was responsible--but if that person goes unpunished, it will only start the process all over again.

It's them I think about. Because I think they are no less valuable than any other victims who have gone without justice. No MORE valuable, but no LESS, either.

No doubt that makes me a petty, small, vengeful person in the eyes of some people. I guess I have to live with that, because this is how I feel.

[Krashkopf]

5. Here is where I think you are are missing the point . . .

You said

The setting free of this man does nothing to avenge a single person wrongly killed by the United States, anytime, anywhere. It doesn't.

Setting him free is not about "avenging" anyone. Setting him free, out of compassion, is about moving on, and healing.

[MajorChode]

6. He already received more compassion than he deserved by not getting put to death

He deserved to be drowned in a bucket of shit.

[Krashkopf]

8. Read your own quote . . .

Fly . . . show compassion . . . not because HE deserves it, but so that YOU can free your mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . like hate, and a need for revenge.

[cigsandcoffee]

9. That's spoken like someone whose family member wasn't spread across the Scottish sky....

Your post reminds me of something my boss always says: it's easy to be generous with other people's money.

[armyowalgreens]

13. The same could be said about many people judging this man...

It's easy to call him evil and wish for him to suffer out the rest of his days in prison.

It's very easy to wish suffering or death on some stranger.

[Statistical]

25. Nobody is saying make him suffer.

Give him the exact medical care he would receive outside prison.

Any suffering he endures will be the same inside or outside of prison.
As far as being alone in his last days well if that if a concern then don't blow planes full of innocent people out of the sky.

I am sure his victims would have loved to go home and see their loved ones one last time before dying.

[armyowalgreens]

30. I'm not really concerned with your opinion considering your stance on imprisonment...

in a previous thread. You are of the orwellian type and it's pretty disturbing.

[MajorChode]

37. You seem to forget he has already been judged

It's easy to call him evil because I'm pretty sure murdering hundreds of people would fit any reasonable person's definition of evil, but of course YMMV. If he isn't evil, then pray tell who is? Furthermore I don't remember anything that said he was being tortured in prison, but if you have evidence to the contrary feel free to offer it.

[armyowalgreens]

40. I don't think anyone is evil. Evil is simply a concept. It doesn't exist in the real world.

Labeling this man evil is about as ludicrous as the "Axis of evil" bullshit. It's simply a term used to invoke an emotional response that is then used to justify horrific acts against another.

[MajorChode]

46. Ah, so if nobody is actually evil...

More than a few people are going to have to strike people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Adolph Eichmann from that list.

Tomas de Torquemada used to cover "heretics" feet with lard and then roast them over an open flame. Idi Amin used to boast about eating the flesh of his victims.

I guess they were all just misunderstood, no?

What a concept!

So just exactly what do you know of the "real world"? Of course I'm only guessing, but you're in your early 20's, right?

[armyowalgreens]

48. Again with the black and white thought?

Simply because I believe evil does not exist does not mean that I think people are just "misunderstood".

No, I do not think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Eichmann were evil. I believe that persons capable of destruction on those levels suffer from mental illness.


How old am I? I'm probably much younger than you. You were pretty accurate in your assumptions.

[MajorChode]

49. I'm just trying to get a sense of your world view, because as yet I can make no sense of it

You also seem to have an extremely limited view of mental health. Just as very few people are perfect physical specimens, perhaps even less are perfect mental specimens. Certainly some people suffer from mental disorders such that they can't distinguish right from wrong, and in fewer cases those people perform violent acts that are beyond their control. I don't think this is the case with any of the people previously mentioned and I haven't seen any competent medical practitioners that study such people claim otherwise. Did some of those people suffer from paranoia or some other mental disorder? Perhaps, but that's barely even in the same ballpark of knowing right from wrong.

I know of no clinical psychiatrists who would agree with your assessment that "evil doesn't exist", but in all fairness I certainly haven't read material from all of them. Is there some professional basis for your hypothesis, or is this just something you dreamed up on your own?

[armyowalgreens]

51. I have not obtained my beliefs from any one source...

I have developed them through research. Most philosophers will say that evil acts do exist, but that persons are not evil. I tend to agree with that assessment, but I no longer think that "evil" is a viable term because it is so often abused.

Mental illness can be a myriad of issues. There are plenty of mentally ill persons that understand "right and wrong". The question might be whether or not someone like Hitler truly believed what they said. Did he really believe in the final solution? Did Stalin really believe in the communist revolution? Did Pol Pot really believe that all but the young were hopelessly lost to the bourgeoisie mentality?

And is it even relevant if they believed it or not? If they were lying to gain power or whatever it was that they wanted, could such depraved acts be carried out by any sane individual?

No matter what anyone has told you, there are still debates amongst ethics professors and philosophers about the nature of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. The case is not closed.

[MajorChode]

53. Interesting...

Be that as it may, I know of no such debate among clinical psychiatrists, and since you've chosen to support your assertion that "evil doesn't exist" on medical grounds, then it seems reasonable to defer to experts on that subject rather than to your own particular flavor of non-specific pseudo-philosophical ramblings.

[armyowalgreens]

54. "Evil" is a philosophical term. It is not medical in nature...

I have actually only ever heard the term used in religious or philosophical context.

[MajorChode]

55. Then you haven't read much about it

Freud was the father of psychoanalysis and he wrote volumes on the subject as have many notable clinical psychiatrists ever since.

Once again you make statements of fact with little to no basis.

[armyowalgreens]

58. Much of Freuds work has been abandoned...

Not all of it, but a lot of it has been debunked. And his own belief was that humans are inherently evil creatures. Many philosophers believe the same thing. The usage of the term "evil" in that context is a philosophical one, not a medical one.

Now maybe I am missing the other Freud writings on "evil", but I have never heard of the medical position of evil. Who are these other clinical psychiatrists that you are talking about?

[MajorChode]

60. Kinda like just about everyone who is a pioneer in their field

It should come as no surprise that some of his work has been debunked. The point was the concept of evil has been written about since the earliest days of clinical psychiatry which flies in the face of your assertion.

Some(but certainly not all) in the field may shy away from actually using the word "evil" because it conjures images of religious or social connotations, but whether they use the words depravity, debasement, or some other synonymous term, the intent is still there. The subject is extremely relevant to the manner in which those with mental disorders are responsible for their criminal behavior.

You can see the most obvious example you seek by tuning into Dr. Michael Stone's show on the Discovery channel or read Dr. Michael Welner's works.

[MilesColtrane]

86. I'd be surprised if you didn't modify your view over time.

Evil exists.

It's not some outer supernatural force though. Every human has the capacity to commit an evil act.

Watch this at least up until 7:11 when Broadnax says of his victims, "Fuck his family too. Both of them."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/video/329188/jailhouse_interview_james_broadnax.html?cat=64

There's no doubt in my mind that this guy is evil, and that he should be locked up until he expires of natural causes.

BTW The robbery netted less than two dollars.

[armyowalgreens]

41. Also, something does not have to qualify as torture in order to be wrong...

Living out your last days in prison, alone could easily be considered cruel and unusual. Which may not qualify as torture, but is still wrong.

[MajorChode]

47. Not by most reasonable people

But good luck in your quest to convince the masses otherwise.

[MajorChode]

12. What a crock of bullshit

By your measure, in order to be "compassionate", I have to believe a man who ruthlessly murdered 259 men, women, and children should be set free instead of rotting in jail. Why don't we let out Charlie Manson, Siran Siran, Charles Albright, and David Berkowitz out while were at it, no? After all, that would be the "compassionate" thing to do, right?

I'm as anti-death penalty as they come, so good luck trying to pin your "hate and revenge" meme on me. Compassion for cold blooded killers has its limits. I'll save mine for the families of the victims of Pan Am 103. If you choose to save yours for terrorists, good for you, but don't try and pretend that just because someone else has none for such human pieces of shit it means they have no "compassion". It only makes you look asinine.

[armyowalgreens]

14. Vengeance is a very interesting part of the human condition...

Very interesting indeed.

[MajorChode]

15. So you think every murderer who goes to jail is there because of "Vengeance"?

Very interesting indeed.

[armyowalgreens]

17. No. But you sure seem to enjoy the concept.

[MajorChode]

19. I don't particularly enjoy the concept of justice, but I certainly see it as a necessary thing

YMMV.

[armyowalgreens]

20. Vengeance isn't justice. In fact, it's anything but justice.

[MajorChode]

21. So you think every murderer who goes to jail is there because of "Vengeance"?

Very interesting indeed.

[armyowalgreens]

29. You really need to up your reading comphrehension...

if that is what you are taking away from my post. Seriously, it's ridiculous how incorrect you are.

[MajorChode]

35. My subtle point went way over your head

You seem to think it's OK to make wildly incorrect assumptions about my posts, but when someone else turns the tables you don't even realize it. Time to work on your own comprehension, no?

Perhaps someday experience will grant you the wisdom of assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Cheers!

[armyowalgreens]

38. Your subtle point? Okay, I give. You win.

This is really ridiculous. It is you that cannot take nuance. Everything must be black and white.

[closeupready]

32. Vengeance isn't justice, and injustice isn't compassion.

And self-flagellation or masochism are as much "compassion" as injustice is.

[armyowalgreens]

33. Forgive me, but I'm failing to see your point.

[closeupready]

34. That letting him out early was an act of injustice, not a rejection of vengeance.

n/t

[armyowalgreens]

39. How so?

[closeupready]

56. Post #26 sums up the argument absolutely perfectly.

Rather than regurgitate, just read that post.

[Krashkopf]

27. Look how anger-filled your posts on this topic are.

Until you let that anger go, you will never get past this. Forgive (didn't Jesus teach that we needed to forgive "7 times 70 times"), show compassion. Move on.

[MajorChode]

36. Look how asinine-filled your posts on this topic are.

Until you let that asinine go, you will never get past this.

Your tactics are childishly amusing. Just because someone calls bullshit on you, doesn't mean they are "angry". You might not seem so ridiculous if you were to learn that small lesson.

Once again you try and pretend that one is devoid of "compassion" if they don't think someone who murdered hundreds should be let free. Rather than "anger", I actually find your warped concept of reality quite comical. Still I have to send up the flag. Try not to get angry about it and forgive me, OK?

[Krashkopf]

42. If choosing compassion over anger . . .

is "asinine;" and trying to live a Christ-like (rather than a "Christian") life is "warped," then I am proud to be a warped ass!

You, my very angry friend, are in my thoughts and prayers.

[MajorChode]

52. I was wondering how long that was going to take

The ultimate claim of moral superiority:
'I'll pray for you'

I'm no more angry at you than I am when I pass any streetcorner preacher. Because I care to challenge their absurdity has much more to do with amusement than anything else. Personally I feel that such people harbor much more deeply seeded anger than they will ever acknowledge or perhaps even realize which is probably why they seek solace in imaginary friends that live in the sky. While I could really run wild with speculation about the need to harbor that kind of guilt such as past physical or emotional abuse, that subject is better left to an entirely different post. So perhaps I shouldn't digress so much.

If it makes you feel better to pray for those who disagree with you, then by all means knock yourself out. While I'd like to say I'm deeply touched by your concern for my immortal soul, to do so would be to feign ignorance of your obvious passive aggressive behavior and I much rather prefer to be honest.

Have a nice day.

[Krashkopf]

63. I'm not making any claim to superiority . . .

moral, or otherwise. All I am doing is pointing out the obvious.

Your anger, and your vengefulness, do not serve you.

God is not "an imaginary friend who lives in the sky." You are god. So am I . . . and so is Ali al‑Megrahi.

Your immortal soul, which knows that truth already, will be just fine.

[Binka]

66. Your Freakishness Is Horrifically Amusing

In a vomit kind of way.

[MajorChode]

69. Sorry, I have to send the bullshit flag up on that one

You'll have to forgive me for that (literally).

You claim superiority because you have to paint those who disagree with you as "angry" or unenlightened. You're really no better than anyone else who has to resort to name calling or other petty methods when their arguments fall flat. I'm sure you don't think you and your methods are completely transparent, but you're as easy to read as a child's book and only slightly more amusing. All I am doing is pointing out the obvious.

Have a nice day.

[Krashkopf]

76. Sorry, MAJ, you can "run up" any flag you want, but that won't change the TRUTH . . .

Man's feeling of seperation from God - that God lives on some distant cloud - and our feelings of seperation from each other - you from Ali al‑Megrahi and Ali al‑Megrahi from you, for example - has led to EVERY act of violence ever committed, and EVERY war ever fought.

Your anger that al-Megrahi is not serving out his full life-sentence is based in same feeling of seperation.

Whether believing that makes me "enlightened" is not for me to say.

[MajorChode]

78. So now you have a monopoly on the "TRUTH". Right.

You are really sounding quite "enlightened". For your sake I sincerely hope it's either alcohol or drug induced, as I shudder to think about the state you're in if those really are your sober thoughts. If you're just shitting me, my hats off to you because you did a fine job, a damn fine job.

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there's been more people killed in the name of your imaginary friend in the sky than all other things combined, my delusional friend. All by people like you who thought they had exclusive rights to the "TRUTH". If it's all the same to you, I'll just as soon keep my distance. And no I really don't want to hear any kaka about how they just weren't on the right path or whatever other apologies or excuses you care to offer. It's all the same crappy tune just played to different music. Religion is nothing more than a way to manipulate the hearts and minds of the weak minded. That's all it has ever been, and that's all it ever will be. If that's too much "TRUTH" for you to handle, well I'm sorry to be so brutally honest, but someone had to do it sooner or later. If it makes you sleep better at night to dismiss me as someone who is just "angry" then by all means don't let me stop you, the humor value alone is at least worth something. Just tell me what streetcorner you like to use, and I'll be glad to stop by now and again for a chuckle if I'm in the neighborhood.

Cheers!

[Krashkopf]

84. You said . . .

there's been more people killed in the name of your imaginary friend in the sky than all other things combined

you are SO angry, you just agreed with me, and you don't even know it!

You are right about religion, but are wrong in equating religion with "the truth."

Don't worry about being "brutally (see, you even use angry words) honest" with me. You should try being "just plain honest" with yourself. You are an angry person. That's who you are. Own it. Work through it, if that isn't who you want to be. But don't deny it. Its obvious to anyone who reads your posts.

[MajorChode]

85. I see comprehension is not your strong suit

Per your infinite wisdom: "brutally honest" now = angry words.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


And I didn't equate religion with the truth. That was you. I realize it's hard with all the haze and clouds of confusion surrounding you, but do try and keep up. OK? I guess you didn't notice the quotes, but again, reading AND understanding must not be too big where you come from.

You are right though. I don't know that I agreed with you. I'm pretty sure I didn't. Damn sure, in fact.

Please do keep going though. The less coherent you get, the more fun I have. Soon there won't be a dry eye in the house.

[Krashkopf]

88. 1. "Brutal" is a very angry word.

2. I NEVER mentioned RELIGION in ANY of my posts. You made that connection yourself in post 78.

3. If you go back and read all of the posts we have exchanged on this topic, you will see that all I have done is urged people, generally, and then you, specifically, to act out of compassion, and not out of anger. I have not written a single mean-spirited word towards you.

4. You, on the other hand, have responded with increasingly angry posts - in this one post you have called me "hazy," "confused," "slow," "uneducated," and "incoherent."

5. But you're NOT angry!. Right!

I hope you do move past your anger. It doesn't serve you.

This will be my last post on this subject.

Peace.

[MajorChode]

89. Context is not your strong suit either

1. "Brutal" is a very angry word.

No word is "angry". If you think otherwise, then the most obvious explanations are either subliteracy or a deeply seeded need to find something that doesn't exist. Sound familiar?

3. If you go back and read all of the posts we have exchanged on this topic, you will see that all I have done is urged people, generally, and then you, specifically, to act out of compassion, and not out of anger. I have not written a single mean-spirited word towards you.

That's hardly all you have done, which I will explain in more detail farther down.

4. You, on the other hand, have responded with increasingly angry posts - in this one post you have called me "hazy," "confused," "slow," "uneducated," and "incoherent."

Ah, come on. Now you're just being dishonest. Why do you increasingly feel the need to lie in order to form retorts? Anger? Perhaps. I'll thank you not to misquote me (lie). Fair enough? I never used the words slow or uneducated. Although I did make references to coherency, haze, and confusion (rather accurately I might add), I didn't use the words "incoherent", "hazy" or "confused". This also points to your dishonesty. If I did make any statements of judgment towards you, then it was only fair. When you're judging someone, how does that statement you used go? Oh yeah, "All I am doing is pointing out the obvious." If judging someone is "angry"(and I'm not saying it does) then I'm thinking you crossed that bridge first. By your own measure, doesn't that make you "angry"? You didn't think that one through very well, did you? Your own twisted logic betrays you.

2. I NEVER mentioned RELIGION in ANY of my posts. You made that connection yourself in post 78.

Now why would you even pretend to claim such a falsehood when your own words are in black and white for all to see? Do you really think others are so stupid that they can't remember and find your own statements?

"Man's feeling of seperation from God - that God lives on some distant cloud - and our feelings of seperation from each other - you from Ali al‑Megrahi and Ali al‑Megrahi from you, for example - has led to EVERY act of violence ever committed, and EVERY war ever fought."
--Krashkopf, post #69

"Forgive (didn't Jesus teach that we needed to forgive "7 times 70 times"), show compassion."
--Krashkopf, post #12

re⋅li⋅gion
  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
Use religion in a Sentence
See web results for religion
See images of religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

5. But you're NOT angry!. Right!

All of us get angry over certain things. Such is the nature of humanity. Benign or constructive outlets to anger are actually a very good thing. Personally I'm much more worried about those who claim they aren't "angry" about anything. It's not a good idea to have those people around small children or animals. You really don't know what they are capable of doing. Have I gotten "angry" over anything you've posted? Certainly not. In fact, I'm quite amused by it. Otherwise I'd never take the time to respond to such absurdity.

I hope you do move past your anger. It doesn't serve you.

Actually anger serves people very well. Like just about everything else, it's only problematic when it's excessive and/or it can't be dealt with. In moderation it's actually quite healthy and a very necessary thing.

Since you've chosen to judge and label me (falsely I might add), I'm going to offer a few thoughts of my own about you. Keep in mind that these are only my opinions and should not be taken as statements of absolute fact as you've chosen. I'm certainly not your head shrink, but still you might want to consider my thoughts and focus your own judgments inward rather than outward for a change. Who knows, it might be fun, right?

I think your behavior is classically passive aggressive, and in your case I think it rises to the pathological level. As in many cases of passive aggressiveness, this is usually caused by childhood abuse where the child was not allowed to show feelings of anger or how to deal with it and other outlets must be found as a defense mechanism. In your case, this outlet appears to be an imaginary friend that requires you to show "compassion" in all instances(which is actually extremely typical of the behavior). Somewhere in your history, it appears as if someone has forced you to believe that "anger" is a very bad thing and must be avoided at all costs. It's really not that much different than being taught that any natural human emotion is inherently bad in all cases, except in the case of passive aggressiveness it can very much lead to self loathing. I suspect this is very much the case as you frequently project what you think is bad within yourself on others. As with most people who are passive aggressive to the extreme, I suspect you have a number of failed relationships which can be directly attributed to the pathology. You may even want to talk to a professional about your childhood and work your way forward, then work out a solution to deal with the problem. Or you can simply remain the way you are and offer an endless source of my entertainment. However for the sake of those around you, I hope you consider the former.

As always,
Have a nice day.

[closeupready]

31. Amen.

n/t

[Strong Atheist]

72. Extremely well thought out, and very well said. This should be it's

own post.

Bravo.

:patriot:

[texasleo]

10. If he were a white Christian...

exactly.

:eyes:

[dorkulon]

16. I just don't agree.

Anyone who can incinerate hundreds of people simply does not merit any kind of compassion. A person who is devoid of compassion forfeits his right to anyone else's. Why should his death be more merciful than those of his victims?

[Statistical]

26. He deserves compassion but compassion has limits.

True justice would be an eye for an eye so burning him alive would be comparable to what his victims got.

Not true justice has no room for mercy or compassion so I am not saying that is what SHOULD happen.

Anything better than being burned alive is compassion.
Giving him 3 meals for the rest of his life is compassion.
Giving him expensive medical care is compassion.
Giving him access to reading material and ability to write letters is compassion.

The man received plenty of compassion because he was convicted by a compassionate society.

Releasing him is just excessive compassion to the point that justice was denied.

[MajorChode]

57. As much as I've disagreed with you in the past...

I have to say you hit that one out of the park.

Don't let it be said that I don't give credit where credit it due.

[proteus_lives]

59. Well said.

Compassion has limits.

[AuntieK]

87. Well said.

Your response expresses my opinion on the release much more eloquently than I could have done myself. I think the moral and ethical answer to the question of whether or not a convicted terrorist found guilty of mass murder should be released for "compassionate reasons" has to be "No". To the question of whether or not a person who is not guilty of a crime for which he was convicted should be released, my answer would be "yes, when his innocence is established or the error of the conviction is proven, not because some people disagree with the conviction." As for those who believe that freedom could flourish in a world where guilt or innocence had no meaning, where nobody is eligible to pass any level of judgement on anyone else's behaviors, and consequences for one's actions is viewed as revenge or retribution or punishment and therefore somehow forbidden, they not only need to find a different planet to inhabit but a different life species to populate it. Humans and even animals can't flourish or even function without consequences for behaviors, no matter what the semantics.

[old mark]

18. Fuck him, and Kadaffi as well. They should have executed him on TV

and broadcast it to Lybia right before the bombs fell.

Fuck all terrorists and all their supporters.

mark

[jasi2006]

24. How true. nt

[Krashkopf]

28. Any RECS for the OT?

Come on folks . . . a rec for compassion? . . . a rec for the fact that WE shouldn't have been terrorized into ignoring the Constitution after 9/11? . . . anyone? . . . anyone? . . . Bueller?

[inna]

44. i tried reccing, but i got an error message (it was more than 24h)

:(

[TheKentuckian]

43. If you believe he is an innocent man that is one thing

but otherwise it takes an ass to be cool with releasing a mass-murderer after eight years not because he is reformed, is going to be a force for good in some way, or is no longer a threat but in the name of compassion.

It is literally stupid to release someone capable of such behavior. He is no less capable of masterminding such an act as he was when he did it and more harm than good was done in any event when he was allowed to be received as a hero. There is no practical upside to this release. If he was innocent then his name should be cleared and the facts brought to light otherwise a release is utterly unwarranted and very plausibly unwise.

[Greyhound]

45. Wow, you can just feel the love. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. If he was framed then the authorities should admit it, vacate his conviction, and set him free

Rather than releasing him under this charade of "compassion."

Because if he IS guilty as convicted, then he deserves to die in jail. Terrorists who murder hundreds of people should not be set free, ever, for any reason. I'm sure his 270 victims would've liked to have seen their families before they died, too, but he took that away from them forever.

If he's not really guilty, then admit it and free him with profound apologies, but releasing him like this is a profound denial of justice.

[JohnyCanuck]

61. It sure looks like the CIA framed him

So if they were to exonerate him, the next logical question raised by the unmannerly rabble would be, "Well just how did he get convicted in the first place?" If it became readily apparent that the CIA was able to manipulate with relative ease the Scottish legal system in order to frame a designated, CIA supplied patsy for a crime he didn't commit, that could cause serious, international embarrassment for the Brits and their "special relationship" as well as for the CIA and US government. Red faces all round, so sweep it under the carpet and lets move on is the order of the day.

[MajorChode]

62. I'll quote Barney Frank here...

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

[JohnyCanuck]

64. I'll quote my sig line here

"We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." Columnist Sydney Schanberg, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

[JohnyCanuck]

65. Then I'll quote this:

Lockerbie: Evidence Fabricated by CIA

Long before the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) announced its spectacular decision to grant a fresh appeal to the Libyan man convicted of the worst act of terror in the U.K., Lord Fraser, who issued the warrant for his arrest, had expressed doubts about the initial verdict.

Family members of the 270 victims promptly grasped the significance of Lord Fraser's admission.

"Lord Fraser had detailed knowledge of events and I think we have to take seriously anything he says now that is relevant to those who gave evidence at Zeist. It is significant that a man who has been as close as he has to the investigation should be making comments like this," said Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy and currently represents the U.K. Families Flight 103 association.

A careful reading of the news release by the SCCRC justifying the commission decision to declare the verdict without reasonable basis, can only led one to conclude that the crown had no evidence, let alone conclusive evidence, in the case against Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.

Why then did Lord Fraser issue an arrest warrant against him in the first place? The answer to this rather intriguing question is both simple and extraordinary. Lord Fraser indicted Megrahi based on fabricated evidence provided by U.S. authorities.

One year into the Zeist trial, the prosecutors were told for the first time that the evidence had been fabricated by a former Libyan agent who had become a CIA asset in 1988. Internal CIA cables show that the agency was well aware since 1988 that the man was a fabricator. The Zeist trial constitutes the only case in history where internal CIA documents were used in a foreign court.

As a rule, the Scottish Prosecution Authorities have a duty to investigate the credibility of their witnesses before they issue an arrest warrant. In the Megrahi's case, they did not. As they blindly trusted their U.S. partners, they failed to perform one of their most basic obligations.- boy and is our face red. (editorial comment by /JC)

Instead of admitting the fact, they tried to cover it up, thus violating Scottish Criminal Law, which requires the prosecution to provide the defense with any significant information susceptible to help their cause.

SNIP

Abdul Majid Giaka was a member of the Libyan Intelligence Service, or at least so he claims. In August 1988, Giaka offered his services to the CIA.

As soon as he defected, his handlers in Malta began to send cables to CIA headquarters in Langley concerning his credibility.

About a year later, his CIA handlers had reached the conclusion that Giaka was just some kind of a con artist. They doubted that he had ever been a Libyan agent and feared that he could not possibly provide any valuable information, in which case his CIA stipend should be terminated.

Clearly, we can deduce from the CIA agents' disappointment that -- nine months after the Lockerbie bombing -- Giaka had provided no relevant information whatsoever about the affair.

During the next two years, he never told his handlers anything about the Lockerbie bombing, even when explicitly asked if he knew anything about the possibility that the bomb may have been planted on Pan Am 103 while the plane was sitting on the tarmac of Luqa airport in Malta. Under cross-examination, he admitted that much during the trial.

Then after a dubious witness (who has since been discredited) made a very tentative identification of Megrahi, Giaka suddenly metamorphosed into an eyewitness who could link Megrahi directly to the bombing.

Giaka's credibility was quickly destroyed and the three judges on the panel came to the obvious conclusion that they could not accept Giaka as a credible and reliable witness. And that should have been the end of it. Without any credible evidence against him, Megrahi should have been acquitted.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=6895

And this:

Libyan Intel Operative Contacts US Embassy in Malta

On Aug. 10, 1988, Abdul Majid Giaka contacted the US embassy in Malta. Giaka was interviewed by a CIA agent to whom he told that he was a member of the Libyan Intelligence Service. A decade later, Giaka will appear at the Zeist trial and testify that two of his former colleagues had planted the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103.

Giaka initially described himself as a high-ranking member of the JSO (the Libyan Intelligence Service), having a good relationship with the head of the organization. In truth, Giaka was working in the civilian branch as a mechanic and car painter.

Giaka told his CIA handler that he wanted to defect to America because he was disgusted by the terrorist activities of the JSO. The truth is slightly less noble.

Giaka was a gambler, small time smuggler and well known womanizer. In the summer of 1988, he harassed a well-connected Egyptian woman and was summoned to return to Tripoli on the first flight available. Giaka understood that he was in trouble and decided to play the American card.

The CIA cables regarding Giaka's allegations are hilarious. Giaka claimed that he was a relative of the late King Idris. The statement is false. He also alleged that Col. Muammar Gaddafi was a freemason. The Libyan foreign minister and the president of Malta were also involved in a Masonic conspiracy.

SNIP

"The most important witness in the Lockerbie trial was systematically torn to pieces," The New York Times reported following his testimony.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=383359&rel_no=1&back_url=

And this:

Lockerbie trial was a CIA fix, US intelligence insider claims
By Liam McDougall, Home Affairs Editor - Sunday Herald
Nov/13/2006

THE CIA manipulated the Lockerbie trial and lied about the strength of the prosecution case to get a result that was politically convenient for America, according to a former US State Department lawyer.

Michael Scharf, who was the counsel to the US counter-terrorism bureau when the two Libyans were indicted for the bombing, described the case as “so full of holes it was like Swiss cheese” and said it should never have gone to trial.

He claimed the CIA and FBI had assured State Department officials there was an “iron-clad” case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and al-Amin Khalifa Fimah, but that in reality the intelligence agencies had no confidence in their star witness and knew well in advance of the trial that he was “a liar”.

Scharf branded the case a “whitewash” and added:

“It was a trial where everybody agreed ahead of time that they were just going to focus on these two guys, and they were the fall guys.”

http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1021&Itemid=0

And this:

LIBYAN TAKEAWAY

SNIP

IN THE PAY OF THE CIA
The casualty is justice and the truth about the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, which claimed 270 victims. For as readers of the Eye’s special report by Paul Foot in 2001 are well aware, Megrahi’s trial was a travesty. There were the testimonies of two witnesses who were paid huge sums by the CIA – one a notorious liar and paid informer, Abdul Giaka, who first put Megrahi in the frame; the other the Maltese shopkeeper who identified him as the man who bought clothes said to have been packed round the bomb. He had been shown photographs of Megrahi.

Some forensic evidence appeared to have been tampered with and much evidence withheld – including the fact that there had been a serious breach in security in Heathrow at the Pan Am baggage area in the early hours of 21 December 1988, the day of the bombing. A padlock on the door had been professionally cut and the area open to intruders. Coupled with the testimony of baggage handlers about two extra cases going on board – one matching the description of the bag said to have carried the bomb – this would have featured heavily in Megrahi’s appeal.

THE SYRIAN CONNECTION
And then, of course, there were the similarities to the modus operandi of a Syrian-backed terrorist cell operating out of Frankfurt, including altitude-sensitive timers, which the judges did not allow Megrahi’s defence team to raise at trial. Because the appeal in Edinburgh has been dogged by delay, none of these troubling issues have been aired. And now, short of the public inquiry demanded by the families of the victims, they never will be.

Allowing the only man convicted of the bombing to be returned to Libya has produced howls of outrage on both sides of the Atlantic. (That is, apart from the rare voices of the UN observer at the trial and some of the British victims’ families, who have studied every aspect of the case and believe there has been a miscarriage of justice.) That outrage would be better focused on the governments and justice systems that have ensured we have all been denied the full truth about Lockerbie.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1243

[MajorChode]

67. Do you have anything other than foilhat references?

Just wondering.

The "star witness" mentioned in your nonsense was known unreliable by the Scottish judges at the time of the trial and they didn't rely on it.

[JohnyCanuck]

71. Scotland's Sunday Herald ?

Probe into Lockerbie timer claims

The makers of the timer used to explode the Lockerbie bomb will travel to Scotland following the revelation that their former employee planted vital evidence.

Edwin Bollier, whose now bankrupt company Mebo manufactured the timer switch that prosecutors used to implicate Libya, plans to visit Scotland with police forensics experts, following news that an engineer was asked to fabricate evidence.

Ulrich Lumpert, formerly an electronics engineer with Mebo AG, Zurich, has signed an affidavit admitting he committed perjury before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.


In his affidavit he states that he stole a handmade sample of an "MST-13 Timer PC-board" from Mebo in Zurich and handed it over, on June 22 1989, to an "official person investigating the Lockerbie case."

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1664337.0.0.php

CIA spook says Megrahi was freed before appeal humiliated justice system

Aug 23 2009 Charles Lavery

A CIA terror expert who worked on the Lockerbie investigation has claimed Megrahi would have been freed on appeal.

In an exclusive interview, retired case officer Robert Baer has revealed details of the secret dossier of evidence Megrahi hoped would clear his name.

Baer claims the appeal, which he worked on, could have done serious damage to our legal system.

And he insists Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had little option other than to release Megrahi.

Baer claimed: Key witnesses - including Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci - were "manipulated".

Vital details freely available to intelligence agencies were withheld from the original prosecution.

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/08/23/cia-spook-says-megrahi-was-freed-before-appeal-humiliated-justice-system-78057-21618329/

(note this is a different intelligence connected individual than the one also quoted as alleging that the trial was a frame up and which I linked in my earleir post above at sandersresearch.com. Also the article at sandersresarch was authored by Liam McDougall, the Home Affairs Editor of Scotland's Sunday Herald /JC)

From The Scotsman:

Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated. The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison. The evidence will form a crucial part of Megrahi's attempt to have a retrial ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The claims pose a potentially devastating threat to the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.

The officer, who was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, is supporting earlier claims by a former CIA agent that his bosses "wrote the script" to incriminate Libya. Last night, George Esson, who was Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway when Megrahi was indicted for mass murder, confirmed he was aware of the development.

The insider said: "He said he believed he had crucial information. A meeting was set up and he gave a statement that supported the long-standing rumours that the key piece of evidence, a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that implicated Libya, had been planted by US agents. "Asked why he had not come forward before, he admitted he'd been wary of breaking ranks, afraid of being vilified. "He also said that at the time he became aware of the matter, no one really believed there would ever be a trial. When it did come about, he believed both accused would be acquitted. When Megrahi was convicted, he told himself he'd be cleared at appeal." The source added: "When that also failed, he explained he felt he had to come forward. "He has confirmed that parts of the case were fabricated and that evidence was planted. At first he requested anonymity, but has backed down and will be identified if and when the case returns to the appeal court."

Original link to the Scotsman's page at http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005 no longer works, so giving the DU link where the article was quoted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1732385

Explosives analysis concludes semtex theory "scientifically implausible" in Pan Am 103 explosion

A scientific analysis of the Crown's discredited theory that approximately 1lb of semtex contained in a Toshiba radio caused the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, has concluded that the notion is "scientifically implausible."

The report, by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer agrees with the findings of John H Parkes, a former MOD contractor and explosives engineer who assisted in the rescue operations in Lockerbie, and subsequently submitted a report of his findings to the then Scottish Secretary Malcolm Rifkind. Parkes was never called as a witness to the trial.

Dr de Braeckeleer's findings reiterate the initial findings from US sources, that the Crown theory does not stand up to forensic scrutiny.

"In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, researchers at the Centre of Explosives Technology Research in Socorro, New Mexico, estimated that up to thirty pounds of explosive was needed to destroy a Boeing 747, if the explosion had occured in the container. We agree with that estimate," the report says.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/501/Explosives_analysis_concludes_semtex_theory.html

(From what I can ascertain firmmagazine.com is an online journal aimed at the British legal community, not the type of place to promote hair brained conspiracy theories I would think.)

From The Daily Mail:

$2m witness payment, bogus forensic evidence and Pentagon memo blaming Iran: How Lockerbie bomber appeal threatened Scottish justice

As the political furore over the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi engulfs three countries in bitter recriminations, The Mail on Sunday can now reveal the new and compelling evidence which he says would have proved his innocence.

In a submission to the Court of Appeal running to thousands of words, Megrahi’s lawyers list 20 grounds of appeal which include:

* Details of a catalogue of deliberately undisclosed evidence at the original trial.
* Allegations of ‘tampering’ with evidence.
* A summary of how American intelligence agencies were convinced that Iran, not Libya, was involved but that their reports were not open to the 2001 trial.

The closely guarded submission was obtained by Ian Ferguson, an investigative journalist and co-author of the book Cover-up of Convenience - The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie.

But the evidence will never be tested in open court after the dying Libyan abandoned it last week to spend his final days with his family.

SNIP

The memos and reports, denied in full to the original trial, were available to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, two years ago, cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction based on six separate counts of the legal argument.

Their view opened the way for a second appeal. That report has never been made public.

Mr Ferguson said: ‘Megrahi was made the scapegoat for whatever reason and from that point everything went in reverse to try to make the crime fit.’

Central to Megrahi’s conviction was the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who claimed that Megrahi had bought clothes allegedly found in the suitcase bomb.

Lawyers were due to claim that Gauci was paid a $2million reward for his evidence, which followed more than 20 police interviews, and that many of the often wildly conflicting statements taken on each occasion were withheld from the defence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208432/A-2m-witness-payment-bogus-forensic-evidence-Pentagon-memo-blaming-Iran-How-Lockerbie-bomber-threatened-Scottish-justice.html

Edited to remove the same article quoted twice /JC

[MajorChode]

74. I didn't get past "thetruthseeker"

I've no interest in debating those who use foilhat sources. Find someone else to play nutty games with.

Have a nice day.

[JohnyCanuck]

79. In my most recent post....

in which I responded to your request for more mainstream sources, I listed The Sunday Herald, The Scotsman, The Daily Mail and TheFirm.com (an on line journal geared to the legal community), all with stories on the questionable circumstances surrounding Mr. Megrahi's conviction and listing some of the damning details, e.g.that evidence given at the trial was fabricated, a main witness was massively bribed (to the tune of millions of dollars) and coached by the CIA and that there was also evidence which should have been seen by the court and which would tend to vindicate Megrahi but which was intentionally withheld from the court.

As a typical American, it might have come as a surprise to you that so much skulduggery and corruption could have gone on in this case and been covered in the British media and yet there was nary a word about it in the US media. Ask yourself why that is the case. I'll give you a hint. It's for the same reason that by and large the US media was (with few exceptions) backing the Iraq war and pointedly ignoring the antiwar voices and giving air time and column inches by a large margin mostly to pro war commentators in the runup to the bogus war on Iraq. They know that their real reason for being is to act as a propaganda arm for their corporate bosses and the military/industrial complex, not to be "boat rockers" or an impartial and "fair and balanced" conveyor of information to the public.

Ask FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds what she thinks of the free press in the USA today

Quote from the article linked in my sig line below:

In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam — sailed through Congress on Aug. 7. (Two courageous senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.) The resolution authorized the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

The rest is tragic history.

An exhaustive new book, The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam, begins with a dramatic account of the Tonkin Gulf incidents. In an interview, author Tom Wells told us that American media "described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely `tit for tat' — when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North."

Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" — as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"

Daniel Hallin's classic book The "Uncensored War" observes that journalists had "a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account ; it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats."

What's more, "It was generally known...that `covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with U.S. support and direction, had been going on for some time."

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."

[ShortnFiery]

68. Yes, us blessed Americans can always speak from "a moral high ground."

We have no standing ... ZERO with regard to any MORALITY as a nation. :(

[maxpower]

73. I am a proud Scot

And I was indeed touched by the compassion they showed.

[Krashkopf]

77. You have every right to be proud . . .

I was moved by McAskill's explanation of his decision.

[maxpower]

80. Thanks

I love Scotland, I can't wait to travel their. My Great Grandmother came over at the end of the 19th century. My grandmother is very Scottish and has had a huge impact on my life. I look very Scottish as well.


Peace
Max

[MajorChode]

82. 73% of Scots that actually live in Scotland weren't so touched

Separately, a poll by Angus Reid strategies found that 79 per cent of people in the UK disagreed with the decision to release Megrahi and 73 per cent of Scots.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Ordinary-prison-GP--not.5592149.jp

[geek_sabre]

81. Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

[MajorChode]

83. Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece