Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

-----------------------

Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'
Jason Allardyce

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.
Related Links

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "This is the strongest evidence yet that the British government has been involved for a long time in talks over al-Megrahi in which commercial considerations have been central to their thinking."

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: "I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

"The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel's son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: "The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn't mention Mr Megrahi.

"At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

"People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement]."

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: "Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics."

Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: "It's always been about business."

BP denied that political factors were involved in the deal's ratification or that it had stalled during negotiations over the prisoner transfer talks.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman denied there had been a U-turn, but said trade considerations had been a factor in negotiating the prisoner exchange deal. He said Straw had unsuccessfully tried to accommodate the wish of the Scottish government to exclude Megrahi from agreement.

The spokesman claimed the deal was ultimately "academic" because Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds: "The negotiations on the [transfer agreement] were part of wider negotiations aimed at the normalisation of relations with Libya, which included a range of areas, including trade.

"The exclusion or inclusion of Megrahi would not serve any practical purpose because the Scottish executive always had a veto on whether to transfer him."

A spokesman for Lord Mandelson said he had not changed his position that the release of Megrahi was not linked to trade deals.

Source: The Times

-----------------------

So... how many of you clicked on this topic thinking it was going to be about the war in Iraq? SURPRISE, FUCKER! It's not. While the argument can be made that the War in Iraq was a war fought for oil, credible supporting evidence is diffiuclt to produce and somewhat biased at best. However, I was surprised (if not downright flabbergasted) to find that the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber was fueled by nothing short of an oil deal.

Normally this would be the part of the topic where I dance a jig at finding out that the English actually have some corrupt politicians that can be bought over with the promise of financial gain, but look! The article doesn't mention Megrahi as being the only person to be considered for release, but there appears to be more releases under consideration as part of the deal. This is all sorts of jacked up.

I have no problem with him being released one bit. He's going to die painfully, and somewhat quickly.

This law was put in place for humanitarian reasons, and if you ignore these humanitarian reasons then we are no better than terrorists.

And people seem to think that this is the only person to ever been released for this reason, which of course he isn't the first and he isn't the last.

At 8/30/09 06:36 PM, ReiperX wrote: And people seem to think that this is the only person to ever been released for this reason, which of course he isn't the first and he isn't the last.

Ugh again?.... Okay, show me when in the UK's history a suspected mass murderer was given "compassionate release".

As far as I know the deal didn't mention him explicitly as you said. But it wasn't prisoner transfer for oil. Their was an oil deal and a prisoner deal and a few other deals. But they were not a part of the same deal. Signed at the same time (so probably do this and get this thing) but the British government is sticking to their not related...

At 8/30/09 06:47 PM, Jon-86 wrote: But they were not a part of the same deal. Signed at the same time (so probably do this and get this thing) but the British government is sticking to their not related...

yes officer, i had sex with that prostitute. However, the money I gave her was a gift, and not a payment for the sex. they were seperate deals.

Which of the following lines make the least sense in this thread:

At 8/30/09 06:36 PM, ReiperX wrote: A: I have no problem with him being released one bit. He's going to die painfully, and somewhat quickly.

B: This law was put in place for humanitarian reasons, and if you ignore these humanitarian reasons then we are no better than terrorists.

C: And people seem to think that this is the only person to ever been released for this reason, which of course he isn't the first and he isn't the last.

I. A
2. B
3. C
4. A and B
5. None of the above

At 8/30/09 07:22 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/30/09 06:47 PM, Jon-86 wrote: But they were not a part of the same deal. Signed at the same time (so probably do this and get this thing) but the British government is sticking to their not related...

yes officer, i had sex with that prostitute. However, the money I gave her was a gift, and not a payment for the sex. they were seperate deals.

If you can prove that it was gift money (which is a tax free amount you can give each year) that would hold up in a British court The woman wouldn't admit being a prostitute as its illegal so yeah tell the Prosecution. Pics or it didn't happen your honour ;-)

Interesting...

The "Left": "Bush's war is for oil! Lives for oil! Impeach Impeach!!! .... "Oh? What's that? The bomber was released as part of an oil deal. Well that's not so bad, at least we get oil from it."

Although I'm inclined to say that both were to secure oil interests, but I do love the insta-switch.

At 8/30/09 06:36 PM, ReiperX wrote: This law was put in place for humanitarian reasons, and if you ignore these humanitarian reasons then we are no better than terrorists.

....did you bother to read the topic at all before posting?

At 8/30/09 06:47 PM, Jon-86 wrote: As far as I know the deal didn't mention him explicitly as you said. But it wasn't prisoner transfer for oil.

The prisoner transfer was part of the deal, yet it wasn't? Is that what I am to surmise you mean from this statement?

What's going on here?

So... how many of you clicked on this topic thinking it was going to be about the war in Iraq? SURPRISE, FUCKER! It's not. While the argument can be made that the War in Iraq was a war fought for oil, credible supporting evidence is diffiuclt to produce and somewhat biased at best. However, I was surprised (if not downright flabbergasted) to find that the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber was fueled by nothing short of an oil deal.

Hmmmm......I'm not sure I trust The Times on this one (for a lack of credible supporting evidence on the one hand (on the internet version at least, I do realise they remove a lot of pictures) and also because it seems like a way of tying the British government into a Scottish decision that has been widely condemned.) I really wouldn't crow too much about this one Proteas, a newspaper report isn't really a smoking gun.

I'd like to see a bit more evidence before I'm willing to decide either way.

At 8/30/09 09:05 PM, Slizor wrote: I'd like to see a bit more evidence before I'm willing to decide either way.

Okay, here's the Reuters report on it if you don't trust the Times as a good source, along with my google search with about a dozen other news articles on the matter.

At 8/30/09 08:04 PM, Memorize wrote: Interesting...

The "Left": "Bush's war is for oil! Lives for oil! Impeach Impeach!!! .... "Oh? What's that? The bomber was released as part of an oil deal. Well that's not so bad, at least we get oil from it."

Although I'm inclined to say that both were to secure oil interests, but I do love the insta-switch.

if a conservative does it, its evil. if a liberal does it, it was done with the best of intentions.

At 8/30/09 06:14 PM, Proteas wrote: -----------------------

Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

;;;
Good !
It's nice to see that some type ...even though it is very round about... of retribution will be paid to citizens of the United Kingdom from this mass murder !
I realise many of the dead were Americans, & that there is no comfort at all by relatives of the deceased by his release.
On a Positive note !
He's dying a painful death & I see this ( cheaper oil) as better than nothing,,,& we already had nothing & a whole bunch of dead people ! Person's now living will reap some benifit from a cheaper supply .

At 8/30/09 09:29 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/30/09 08:04 PM, Memorize wrote: Interesting...

The "Left": "Bush's war is for oil! Lives for oil! Impeach Impeach!!! .... "Oh? What's that? The bomber was released as part of an oil deal. Well that's not so bad, at least we get oil from it."

Although I'm inclined to say that both were to secure oil interests, but I do love the insta-switch.

if a conservative does it, its evil. if a liberal does it, it was done with the best of intentions.

Funny. I don't remember being okay with this guy's release. In fact, I distinctly recall wondering why the hell they released him even if he was going to die in three months. No insta-switch here - in my opinion both were mistakes.

At 8/30/09 08:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/30/09 06:47 PM, Jon-86 wrote: As far as I know the deal didn't mention him explicitly as you said. But it wasn't prisoner transfer for oil.

The prisoner transfer was part of the deal, yet it wasn't? Is that what I am to surmise you mean from this statement?

What's going on here?

The BBC published a statement from Gaddafis son or something and he was talking about the deal in the desert. He was saying a number of deals were done that day. One for oil a few others and then the possible prisoner transfer thing. They were separate agreements just signed around the same time. I will try and find the link for you I read it some time last week.

At 8/30/09 11:33 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Funny. I don't remember being okay with this guy's release. In fact, I distinctly recall wondering why the hell they released him even if he was going to die in three months. No insta-switch here - in my opinion both were mistakes.

thats because you're not a zombie liberal.

At 8/30/09 09:17 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/30/09 09:05 PM, Slizor wrote: I'd like to see a bit more evidence before I'm willing to decide either way.

Okay, here's the Reuters report on it if you don't trust the Times as a good source, along with my google search with about a dozen other news articles on the matter.

Again, all the sources (I had to do my own Google search, your link just links to Google) just link back to The Times and I still haven't seen a photograph of the letters. One point that would lend a bit of credibility to your argument though is Jack Straw's comments that the issue is "academic" and a "red herring". It's not really dismissing the argument on its own grounds, is it? Also, this chimes with the content of the letters.

Although, on the other hand, Jack Straw is a seasoned Politician, why would he send such potentially damaging letters to a recently appointed Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice who is part of a rival political party? I would have expected him to play his hand closer to his chest. Plus the timing of the letters (a month after Gordon Brown came to office) is suspicous as it only implicates the current government, not the Blair government who brokered the deal.

Anyhow, if we take The Times article at face value, my reading of the situation is this.

In 2007 the British Government negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya in part as a continuation of the normalisation of relations and also because of Libya's oil resources. While Straw tried to resist the inclusion of Megrahi the Libyans were having none of it and he gave in to their deamnds. However, because the decision to transfer Megrahi was in the remit of the Scottish Government Megrahi never was released under the agreement (which would explain the delay between the PTA and now.) Megrahi then became terminal and was released under Scottish law on compassionate grounds.

So, what this would mean is that while the UK government was willing to transfer Megrahi to a Libyan prison in return for BP's access to oil and greater diplomatic ties, because of Scotch opposition they were unable to. Megrahi's release, then, was actually according to Scoth law and reflecting their decisions and was not a product of international political horse trading. As such, while the UK government has shown intent to trade Megrahi in return for oil (to put it crudely) they didn't actually release him.

At 8/31/09 04:41 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

The BBC published a statement from Gaddafis son or something and he was talking about the deal in the desert. He was saying a number of deals were done that day. One for oil a few others and then the possible prisoner transfer thing. They were separate agreements just signed around the same time. I will try and find the link for you I read it some time last week.

I like how all of those deals fall perfectly into place, conveniently one after the other.

At 8/31/09 01:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/31/09 04:41 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

The BBC published a statement from Gaddafis son or something and he was talking about the deal in the desert].......[ I will try and find the link for you I read it some time last week.

I like how all of those deals fall perfectly into place, conveniently one after the other.

How do you mean?

At 8/31/09 02:28 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

How do you mean?

Britain: "Let's make a deal for oil!"

Libya: "Nope..."

Britain: "Prison Transfer."

Libya: "Hey... about that deal for oil."

NewsFlash: "Deal for oil reached with Libya!"

I can really see both sides of the argument here although i don't know if it really did happen.

1. 9 (British government ((if involved))) the man is going to die know matter what we do and do we really gain much knowing that we killed him first? If we get a profit off of returning a man with an expiration date on his forehead why wouldn't we take it? Killing him would be useless to us in general and we can help ourselves by taking oil.\

2. (Outraged person) What!? You let him be a hero and live out a luxurious life rather than let him rot in a cold cell?! You sold out your convictions for oil and i have lost so much respect for you doing it.

honestly if it did happen that's what governments do and they only do it in the best intrest of the country and its people.

At 8/31/09 02:46 PM, Memorize wrote: Britain: "Let's make a deal for oil!"
Libya: "Nope..."
Britain: "Prison Transfer."
Libya: "Hey... about that deal for oil."

And how do you know it happened in that order? The only deals that have come to light are the ones in the news, nobody has any idea of the deals our governments make, when they make them and who with...

I'm not a fan of the British government as they basically used Scotland as a test case for their poll tax policies in the 80s and stiff us because we really don't matter to them. So what point are you making regarding my post?

At 8/31/09 03:38 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

And how do you know it happened in that order? The only deals that have come to light are the ones in the news, nobody has any idea of the deals our governments make, when they make them and who with...

Except that all of this hubba-balloo is coming from leaked Government papers.

At 8/31/09 03:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/31/09 03:38 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

And how do you know it happened in that order? The only deals that have come to light are the ones in the news, nobody has any idea of the deals our governments make, when they make them and who with...

Except that all of this hubba-balloo is coming from leaked Government papers.

So are you making a point against the British government or what? Pointing the finger and going ooooh look their just as bad as the states who they have a special relationship with? Yeah and Scotland made a trade agreement with China a few years ago and their not the most favourable of characters.

I honestly think that its wrong for anybody to use the memories of those killed for point scoring. Or maybe this is a good thing, maybe people will realise governments are not squeaky clean and they will start to ask more questions and take closer looks at who they have elected to represent them!

Maybe even protest the governments actions and get a police baton around the head. All in good fun mind you :P

At 8/31/09 04:00 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

So are you making a point against the British government or what? Pointing the finger and going ooooh look their just as bad as the states who they have a special relationship with? Yeah and Scotland made a trade agreement with China a few years ago and their not the most favourable of characters.

All it means is that they're as ill-minded as the States.

Americans are pissed. Why?

What do you think Britain and Scotland would do if a bomber blew up a plane in the United States that carried mostly British and Scottish persons then the US released their killer for oil?

I honestly think that its wrong for anybody to use the memories of those killed for point scoring. Or maybe this is a good thing, maybe people will realise governments are not squeaky clean and they will start to ask more questions and take closer looks at who they have elected to represent them!

They should've realized that decades ago.

At 8/31/09 04:26 PM, Memorize wrote: All it means is that they're as ill-minded as the States.

I would say the British are worse than America to be honest. The British can basically say been their done that and got the t-shirt (with the exception of going to the moon)

Americans are pissed. Why?

What do you think Britain and Scotland would do if a bomber blew up a plane in the United States that carried mostly British and Scottish persons then the US released their killer for oil?

If nobody from my family was on the plane I honestly wouldn't care. I didn't care when London was bombed and I didn't care when they attempted to bomb Glasgow airport. Because attacks like that are carried out by nutters and I probaly have just as much chance being killed when I go out drinking on the weekend.

The government would probably not be happy with it, but the average person wouldn't go to the extent it has gone here with people setting up "boycottscotland.com" and other stupid things like that.

Well here you go. It was on the news just their. Tomorrow (Tuesday) their gonna release all correspondence between the Scottish and British government concerning Al Megrahi. And this supposedly will supposedly show his release was not related to Oil.

At 8/31/09 04:26 PM, Memorize wrote: What do you think Britain and Scotland would do if a bomber blew up a plane in the United States that carried mostly British and Scottish persons then the US released their killer for oil?

Shrug our shoulders mumble ' well that sucks' and get one with our lives.

It's what we do when we get bombed by terrorists, so the release of a prisoner isn't going to have that much of a different affect, unless we're personally affected by the event in question.

At 8/31/09 05:45 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Well here you go. It was on the news just their. Tomorrow (Tuesday) their gonna release all correspondence between the Scottish and British government concerning Al Megrahi. And this supposedly will supposedly show his release was not related to Oil.

Even if they release documents saying it's not related to oil, you still have to take the chance to save their asses they could've forged the documents. Even though im taking the same viewpoint as conspiracy theorist, there's still a small possibility.