tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post1815956090361434717..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: US ambassador repeats "try Megrahi" nonsenseRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-90018881654899332402011-07-24T10:09:53.094+01:002011-07-24T10:09:53.094+01:00Michael
"On the second post, I agree. I thin...Michael<br /><br />"On the second post, I agree. I think the SCCRC report should be released, but as Professor Black has said, the SNP have held it up -- isn't that going on 3 years (since 2008, if I recall correctly)?"<br /><br />Four years. 2007. <br /><br />The UK political establishment, the Scottish political establishment and the Scottish Judiciary all held it up. With the approval of the US because they did not want the appeal heard either. They still do not want the truth to emerge, that we convicted an innocent man. <br /><br />If I've offended your constitution that's too bad. The US has shown itself to peoples throughout the world to be a country only interested in itself, (and close friends) and a country which does not recognise international law. It is also one which will condone, and fund, state sponsored terrorism as practised by the state of Israel. It has protected Israel repeatedly at the UN when the rest of the world was appalled by Israel's illegal conduct on many occasions in relation to Palestine. <br /><br />Your lunatic president, Bush, did insane deals with Pakistan in return for access to their airspace and a route into Afghanistan. What did he use as currency? Nuclear weapons! He is now gone and so are the people he traded with. Pakistan is even more unstable now and we don't even know where those weapons are! He then led the illegal invasion of Iraq. He unleashed a tide of racism across the planet, assisted by another liar, Blair, and consequently made the world a much more dangerous place. <br /><br />Your constitution is all about one thing: the right of the USA to do as it likes. Some of us have serious issues with such a position but for me it is your hypocrisy that most offends. For you adopt the position you have taken on this thread and others and throw in the word democracy when it suits. You people don't DO democracy. You don't want to: its just all about you. And that leads people like me to have no respect whatsoever for your beloved constitution. Especially on occasions like this where you employ your constitution to justify ignoring criminal proceedings, which your country signed up to at the time, in order to do the whole thing over again in your country. That is a preposterous position to take when the US took part in original plans and talks regarding that trial and how it would be all be done at the time. There was a trial, a verdict and a conviction. Your people then accepted a compensation package involving millions of dollars and took the money. And now you wave your constitution around and insist you can set all that aside and start over? <br /><br />What's wrong Michael? Are you afraid of an Inquiry actually happening which will prove we got the wrong guy? Is that why you want Megrahi back in the States so you can do "justice" the American way? No thanks. The American idea of justice is not shared by those of us who truly believe in justice.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-31893588409371590482011-07-24T01:32:57.711+01:002011-07-24T01:32:57.711+01:00Oh yes, and you don't like it when I say you m...Oh yes, and you don't like it when I say you make me sick? Too bad.<br /><br />This blog has an open comments policy, and I'm allowed to comment just as you are. Do you think that all <i>your</i> comments reflect on Professor Black? Or not, because you don't happen to agree with him?<br /><br />I comment on his blog. I happen to agree with him about the Zeist verdict. No doubt I disagree with him about other things. Does that make me a "follower"? Truly, you have a strange world-view.<br /><br />You say you admire Professor Black's legal mind. (Does that make you a follower, then?) In that case, you must surely have considered why he believes as he does about the Zeist verdict. He has explained the reasons for his belief many times, lucidly and compellingly.<br /><br />And yet you simply brush this aside and say you disagree, without at any point explaining why you disagree. You have been asked to explain, countless times, but all you do is posture about how great America is, and then take offence.<br /><br />Do you know what the legal meaning of <i>petitio principii</i> is?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-13035266927631199382011-07-24T01:25:12.550+01:002011-07-24T01:25:12.550+01:00Michael, I checked to see what Jo had said that yo...Michael, I checked to see what Jo had said that you characterised as "vile". It seems to be her statement that the USA bribed "a witness" with millions of dollars to get Megrahi convicted.<br /><br />I think it's vile too. I think it's far more vile than even Jo's entirely accurate comments indicated.<br /><br />The USA first of all used a combination of threats and bribes to induce Giaka to testify to a pack of lies that seem to have been directly fed to him by the CIA and/or the DoJ. He didn't do a good enough job, but he still got US citizenship and a new life in the USA under the witness protection programme.<br /><br />Then the USA dangled the prospect of millions of dollars under the noses of both Tony and Paul Gauci, making it quite clear that getting this money was contingent on Megrahi being convicted. Tony was pretty unconvincing, but apparently good enough. He got $2 million. Paul, who didn't even testify, got $1 million all for himself. What for? For keeping up Tony's resolve.<br /><br />You couldn't make it up.<br /><br />The USA got what it wanted, and a bunch of Scottish judges suspended all reason and logic and turned in a guilty verdict. Now it doesn't like what another jurisdiction did ten years later, so it wants to tear up all the agreements, kidnap someone who is legally still Scotland's prisoner, return him to prison even though he is terminally ill, and run a show trial with a pre-determined outcome so they can get to beat up this innocent man some more.<br /><br />Yeah, vile just about covers it.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-63012918851995600042011-07-23T20:49:21.522+01:002011-07-23T20:49:21.522+01:00@Jo G - "Take your constitution and ram it wh...@Jo G - "Take your constitution and ram it where the sun don't shine." Lovely sentiments. <br /><br />On the second post, I agree. I think the SCCRC report should be released, but as Professor Black has said, the SNP have held it up -- isn't that going on 3 years (since 2008, if I recall correctly)? That is not the US's fault. <br /><br />I hope the report is released. I hope that someday that the medical records are also released. <br /><br />Again, what do you do with that report? The appeal is dropped -- and it was not required. <br /><br />I also agree that the whole she-bang should re-opened. That is why I have offered the US should prosecute Al-Megrahi.<br /><br />So, we're on the same side there.<br /><br />Aside from the unfortunately vile comment in the former posting, you offered a meaningful discussion point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-24321275214250381932011-07-23T20:29:59.751+01:002011-07-23T20:29:59.751+01:00Michael
"And, I concede it's very rarely...Michael<br /><br />"And, I concede it's very rarely applied in Scotland. However, there is still comprehensive shock that the single largest, convicted (whether or not you agree with the conviction, he was convicted) mass-murderer in (non-war-crime-related) history would be afforded any type of release. "<br /><br />He had an appeal supported, ON SIX GROUNDS, by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission. <br /><br />ONE OF THOSE GROUNDS WAS THAT YOUR COUNTRY BRIBED A WITNESS WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-21867858084514246252011-07-23T20:26:31.179+01:002011-07-23T20:26:31.179+01:00Michael, I assume nothing. Your posts speak for t...Michael, I assume nothing. Your posts speak for themselves. "I am American and therefore." That very approach is why you are so hated throughout the world. <br /><br />I do not hate Americans but I do stand up for justice which is something the US is not famous for doing. (Especially in the Middle East!)<br /><br />Take your constitution and ram it where the sun don't shine. Your country signed up to the prosecution of Megrahi and his co-accused being held under Scots Law. It is therefore bound by the outcome. Which means Megrahi is still Scotland's prisooner. Any move made now by the US to snatch him will therefore contravene international law. Those are the facts. And no argument you care to put up will change them. <br /><br />Finally I really have no interest in the "policy issues" of the US. I have seen them in action in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya and frankly they make me want to throw up.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-35237676465329310992011-07-23T18:43:30.754+01:002011-07-23T18:43:30.754+01:00@Jo G - I am attempting to have a specific discuss...@Jo G - I am attempting to have a specific discussion about a legal issue that Professor Black addressed and I offered a substantiated, disagreement about.<br /><br />You, in response, are dredging up political issues that are, frankly, off topic and irrelevant to this situation. <br /><br />I get it: You hate the USA. You hate Bush. Noted. <br /><br />We all suck and take up too much space on the planet -- does that cover it all? <br /> <br />So, because I am American, you just assume that I am some prehensile troglodyte that has a barely functioning, room-temperature IQ? <br /><br />If that makes you feel better, then so be it. <br /><br />I am happy to discuss the legal (Constitutional) issue here. If you find another forum where it's appropriate to dialogue on the policy issues of the US, please invite me to that forum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-49743964671138103522011-07-23T18:23:36.442+01:002011-07-23T18:23:36.442+01:00@Pete - I don't pretend to understand compassi...@Pete - I don't pretend to understand compassionate release as Professor Black does. <br /><br />We have it here in the US, but it's VERY RARELY applied. (Compassionate Release, Procedures For Implementation 18 USC 3582/4205.)<br /><br />And, I concede it's very rarely applied in Scotland. However, there is still comprehensive shock that the single largest, convicted (whether or not you agree with the conviction, he was convicted) mass-murderer in (non-war-crime-related) history would be afforded any type of release. <br /><br />Irrespective of him being "Scotland's prisoner", he is still liable to be charged in other jurisdictions under which he falls for his alleged activities. And the USA is one of them...<br /><br />People get arrested and tried for a felony in one jurisdiction, get convicted, and then are tried in another. This happened in Virginia and Maryland regarding the DC sniper -- though that is intra-US. He killed people in both jurisdictions, and was subject to trial in both. <br /><br />Now, this is slightly different as the argument is offered that he is being tried twice for the same bombing. <br /><br />I am not a lawyer (which is three years law school after a bachelor's degree in the US to get a juris doctorate). So, I will defer to the contacts that I shared are being secured in US Constitutional law. These resources are being secured through a contact I have at a global cable news broadcaster.<br /><br />So, we'll likely get answers from some of the very people that would either adjudicate or try that case (or others like it). <br /><br />Doesn't that sound fair?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-47459272727002894812011-07-23T17:35:49.479+01:002011-07-23T17:35:49.479+01:00Pete
"if they feel indebted to the US,"...Pete<br /><br /> "if they feel indebted to the US,"<br /><br />Are they, then, to set international law aside? That is the question. <br /><br />(You also might wonder at why they're "indebted".)<br /><br />The "rebels" were championed by Obama and the UK without even knowing who "the rebels" were. Not much comfort to those of us who actually believe in democracy.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-28278182518401072042011-07-23T16:56:19.038+01:002011-07-23T16:56:19.038+01:00Michael
The Al-Megrahi situation has been treated...Michael<br /><br /><i>The Al-Megrahi situation has been treated as a criminal situation, and as such, the US won't resort to "abduction". It will seek legal extradition.</i><br /><br />If the situation in Libya is ever resolved to the point where a stable and legitimate government upholds the rule of law, then Megrahi will never be extradited since he is Scotland's prisoner. That's not to say that if the rebels succeed, and if they feel indebted to the US, they won't hand him over, but in that case it wouldn't be what you and I would call legal.<br /><br />I don't believe a show trial is inevitable in that hypothetical situation. Ultimately an American jury would have to decide on the evidence, and given a sufficiently open-minded jury any result is possible, whatever the pressure to convict. It happened over here in the case of Clive Ponting.<br /><br />What I'm uncomfortable with in the Ambassador's remarks is the subtext that the purpose of a retrial in the USA is not to establish guilt or innocence, but simply to impose a sentence more in keeping with American feelings.petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05831322202596781171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-83197949864869000342011-07-23T16:29:25.326+01:002011-07-23T16:29:25.326+01:00"I may disagree with you, but I attempt to do..."I may disagree with you, but I attempt to do so without resorting to personal insults."<br /><br />You don't need personal insults Michael. The very fact that your position starts with, "I am American and therefore.........." is insulting enough to any person who truly believes in that thing we call democracy. You don't do democracy really, do you? You just tend to think that Americans should have the last word on everything. Not a good look, particularly when some of us possess the intelligence to see exactly what all things American have done to the world in the last fifteen years at least. <br /><br />I give you a challenge Michael. Imagine if countries of the world had demonstrated demanding "regime change" in the US when the lunatic Bush was in charge. What would that have brought? Yes exactly. Nothing. I rest my case. <br /><br />In the late 90s Pakistan's access to nuclear weapons was suspended because of instability in that region. Your man Bush lifted that suspension in order to get airspace and a route into Afghanistan for his first war. And now? Bush is gone, the guys he was in touch with are gone. Pakistan is even more unstable and no one knows who is in charge of those weapons. How smart was that????? I will re-phrase. How reckless was that, to negotiate using nuclear weapons as bait? And you hold up the US as an example to everyone else? You are either brainwashed or sick. I suspect the former.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-10072164725432248842011-07-23T16:16:47.355+01:002011-07-23T16:16:47.355+01:00Michael, I see you ignored my posts. I'm plea...Michael, I see you ignored my posts. I'm pleased. It means they bother you or it means you don't have an answer. <br /><br />I'm sorry for you and those like you who go through life with this bizarre philosophy that goes along the lines of "I'm American and therefore I can do what I like." I am sorry for others who got in your path because people like me know what you did to them. "I am American and therefore....." What a philosophy! I believe in justice. You believe in something else altogether and that place is somewhere justice will not sit comfortably. All of which makes me a better person than you are.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-79530849956495724942011-07-23T16:09:46.293+01:002011-07-23T16:09:46.293+01:00Rolfe, why are you failing to state that for the U...Rolfe, why are you failing to state that for the US to do such a thing would be illegal? <br /><br />Regardless of their tendency to ignore things like international law you really should state that such a move would indeed be illegal. <br /><br />Megrahi is currently Scotland's prisoner, free only on licence. Which means, legally, the US should not remotely be considering going anywhere near him. <br /><br />Even if Michael is ignoring legality, tell him.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-22647360217609675232011-07-23T02:39:06.122+01:002011-07-23T02:39:06.122+01:00@Rolfe
I have attempted to have a civil discussi...@Rolfe <br /><br />I have attempted to have a civil discussion with you and you resort to personal insults? <br /><br />I have admired what I believe were your comments many months ago about the discrepancies regarding the Greenock meeting notes on 8/4/09 (Aug 4), 8/5/09 and 8/6/09. I admired them as I had observed the same thing independently.<br /><br />I may disagree with you, but I attempt to do so without resorting to personal insults, backed by fact, and/or substantiated (in this instance regarding the prosecution of Al-Megrahi in the USA) with detailed opinions and case law. <br /><br />Indeed, I have offered to apologize if I am in error in my assertions here about that prosecution -- though I highly doubt I am wrong. <br /><br />I am willing to have an intelligent discussion about the topics on this blog. However, any illnesses should be referred to your primary care physician. <br /><br />I would add the following: As a follower of Professor Black, your comments reflect on him as well. The personal insults reflect poorly on Professor Black. <br /><br />I only know him through this blog and correspondence outside of here. I believe he is a substantial legal mind. I have learned much from him. I appreciate his position (as it relates to JFM) and passion, though I disagree with the former and fully appreciate the latter. It is humbling to find someone of his repute willing to engage in direct, candid dialogue -- and respecting opinions other than his own.<br /><br />So, it would be appropriate to keep in mind that your insults do reflect on Professor Black and tend to undermine not only your credibility, but his. <br /><br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Michael ClarksonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-24138632602500727222011-07-23T01:41:35.925+01:002011-07-23T01:41:35.925+01:00The US being "allowed" to prosecute Megr...The US being "allowed" to prosecute Megrahi, is not quite the point. The US does as it damn well pleases, as we have all seen.<br /><br />In practical terms, who would stop it?<br /><br />I view the prospect of Megrahi being kidnapped from Tripoli, where he has not breached the terms of his release under Scots law as far as I know, and flown to the USA to languish in jail while people talk about a trial for about as long as we talked about a second appeal, with absolute horror.<br /><br />The trouble is the USA is so all-powerful that if it did that, everybody else would simply wring their hands and do nothing. There's nothing so dangerous as an all-powerful bully whose citizens really believe they're promoting freedom and justice and doing good for the world.<br /><br />And you still haven't given anyone the slightest clue on what basis you believe Megrahi had anything at all to do with the Lockerbie bombing.<br /><br />You make me sick.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-70783284748366404072011-07-23T00:11:11.657+01:002011-07-23T00:11:11.657+01:00@Professor Black
I neglected to add, that I expe...@Professor Black <br /><br />I neglected to add, that I expect you to equally publicly correct the errors I believe you made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-71499262193724766442011-07-23T00:02:41.913+01:002011-07-23T00:02:41.913+01:00@Professor Black - Reid v Covert nullifies your po...@Professor Black - Reid v Covert nullifies your position. <br /><br />I will make you either a gentleman's bet or bet you £50 to the winner's favorite charity, if permissible under law.<br /><br />The bet is simple: I say that the US has the legal right to prosecute Al-Megrahi. You say it doesn't.<br /><br />The Supremacy Clause relates to the preemption that Federal law has over State law. The case law surrounding it, relates mostly to conflicts between taxes/property rights subsequent to the revolution. However, the modern interpretation extends to the concept that the US is a Federal republic and not a Confederacy (as it was originally organized prior to the Constitution). <br /><br />Reid v Covert - from 1957 - unequivocally reinforces that NO treaty or executive policy action may supersede the Constitution...and, again, reinforces that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. <br /><br />I am happy to mutually agree to a neutral arbiter. <br /><br />Are you game? I am happy to equally publicly apologize on this blog if I am wrong about the US being allowed to prosecute Al-Megrahi.<br /><br />Michael ClarksonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-56324644132402913912011-07-22T23:44:35.028+01:002011-07-22T23:44:35.028+01:00"I can't believe how people professing th..."I can't believe how people professing the importance of freedom and justice would be so antipathetic toward a country that has done so much to promote it."<br /><br />Tell it to Palestine<br />Tell it to IraqJo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-88679324126733341422011-07-22T23:40:17.956+01:002011-07-22T23:40:17.956+01:00Michael
"However, Mr. Al-Megrahi has NEVER b...Michael<br /><br />"However, Mr. Al-Megrahi has NEVER been convicted in a US Court. Thus, he is not subject to double jeopardy. (And the US has original jurisdiction for those Americans killed and the fact that Pan Am was a US flagged carrier.)"<br /><br />The US agreed to the trial at Zeist, it handed over "jurisdiction" to a Scottish court. Its citizens accepted compensation from Libya as part of the deal too. THAT is why there was no trial in a US court. The crime happened in Scotland, the trial took place under Scots Law with US approval. <br /><br />Megrahi, currently, is a prisoner free on licence only. He is therefore STILL under Scottish jurisdiction as Scotland's prisoner. The US therefore cannot, now, decide to change all earlier agreements which it signed up to just because it suits. (Although obviously we realise it signed up to the Geneva Convention too and then created the abomination known as Guantanamo Bay and changed the term POWs to "illegal combatants to allow detention without trial and torture too!)<br /><br />The trial has been held, with US approval, and at the time the outcome was accepted by the US along with the millions of dollars in compensation paid, by Libya, to the families of those who lost loved ones on Flight 103. I believe the UN also was involved in negotiations on compensation to be paid by Libya and signed it off when all deals were agreed and finalised. <br /><br />Right now Megrahi remains Scotland's prisoner under Scots Law and International Law. So Professor Black is not wrong. He is absolutely correct. And incidentally an independent body called the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission went on to find SIX grounds to find that conviction unsafe. So to quote a well known play, there is still Unfinished Business over Lockerbie. <br /><br />The various stuff you quote is irrelevant. You could save yourself a lot of time by keeping it simple. When the US wants its own way it doesn't give a toss for any sort of law. Its what the US is famous for. It is THE biggest bully on the planet and that is the reason it is hated by so many. It shoots an airbus out of the sky and kill hundreds of innocent civilians and what does it do? It gives the guy who led THAT terrorist act a medal!Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-36728611612915036582011-07-22T15:51:13.876+01:002011-07-22T15:51:13.876+01:00Michael, what makes you think anybody's motiva...Michael, what makes you think anybody's motivation is to "embarrass the evil USA"? Speaking for myself, my motivation is to get <i>my own country</i> to clean up its act and admit it convicted a man on evidence that shouldn't be enough to make a parking ticket stick. Moving on to try to find out who did bomb that plane would be good too. The idea that the lowlifes who killed 270 people got clean away is not one I find comforting.<br /><br />The USA's role was hardly pure and honourable either, but this is international politics we're talking. Nobody's hands are ever clean.<br /><br />If the USA wanted to try Megrahi <i>in absentia</i>, they could have done it any time these past 20 years (nearly). Why would they want to do it now, when he's legally guilty under Scots law, just as he has been since 2001?<br /><br />This is all about wanting to kidnap someone who is Scotland's prisoner, from the place where he is legally bound to remain by the conditions of his release on licence. And the motivation is not justice but revenge, because US citizens who know bugger-all about the details of the case think it's a completely peachy idea to keep a man dying of cancer in jail a thousand miles from home.<br /><br />Megrahi seems to be doing well, medically, the last we heard about it. Good for him. Do you think the best doctors on the planet could have got that clinical result with their patient banged up in Greenock jail? No chance. The three-month prognosis was given on the basis of his remaining in jail, and it was probably not that far out. Put him back in jail, and you don't need to be a consultant oncologist to know what would happen.<br /><br />I spent a lot of time looking at every photo of Megrahi I could get my hands on, trying to get a feel for how reasonable this whole "resembles the purchaser" thing was. One thing that struck me forcefully was how dreadfully the man changed between 2007 and 2009. The pictures from 2009 are of someone on heavy doses of steroids, and for a 57-year-old he was doing a good impression of an old, old man.<br /><br />So "pushing for US charges to be pressed forward" isn't an academic exercise. It's something that has real implications for a real person.<br /><br />I don't trust the USA not to run a show trial any more than I trust Scotland not to run a show trial, after Camp Zeist. The interests vested in a guilty verdict are quite overwhelming. It's a naive and frankly silly suggestion.<br /><br />And I notice you haven't mentioned your actual reasons for believing Megrahi guilty. Do you think he bought these clothes? How can you support that belief on the basis of the evidence? Do you think the bomb travelled on KM180? What evidence do you have for believing that? If you believe neither, then there is nothing of any substance to connect Megrahi to the atrocity, and in fact his flight from Malta to Tripoli that morning gives him an actual alibi.<br /><br />These are the questions that need to be addressed, not why did a dying man who was desperate to get out of jail drop the appeal he didn't think he'd live to see completed, when it was made pretty plain to him that he wouldn't be going anywhere unless he did that.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-53197825590690704942011-07-22T12:15:39.822+01:002011-07-22T12:15:39.822+01:00Michael, I don't think it really matters that ...Michael, I don't think it really matters that there are US indictments (dating from 1991) in respect of Megrahi and Fhimah. What matters is whether these indictments could today lawfully be brought to trial in a US Federal court. The answer to that question is pretty clearly "No" for the reasons (not just constitutional reasons) given in the blog post that immediately follows the present one.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-39721638971506706162011-07-22T04:40:30.649+01:002011-07-22T04:40:30.649+01:00I expanded on my comment at The Firm.
I would of...I expanded on my comment at The Firm. <br /><br />I would offer that you should consult US Constitutional attorneys on this issue. I immensely respect Professor Black from our many informative discussions - though disagreeing with his assertion that Al-Megrahi is innocent - however, he is not a US Constitutional lawyer. <br /> <br />The US has original jurisdiction on Pan Am 103, though acceded to a Camp Zeist trial through UN resolution. <br /> <br />The indictments remain open (as noted) and are Federal charges. <br /> <br />I might suggest former US Solicitor General Ted Olsen, or US Attorney General Eric Holder as excellent resources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29170113634151351472011-07-22T04:21:57.414+01:002011-07-22T04:21:57.414+01:00Professor Black,
I respond here as I did in The ...Professor Black, <br /><br />I respond here as I did in The Firm. <br /><br />So, how does the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution apply? This clause relates to the supremacy of federal law over the states. Ware v Hyton (1796) is one example of a state statute being nullified by the Treaty of Paris. <br /><br />Where Professor Black is wrong - and I confess I am not a lawyer - is that the relevant Supreme Court cases like Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate -- which includes UN Resolutions. It would violate the rights of the American citizens who died to have their rights denied for the prosecution of their murderer -- Al-Megrahi, et al. <br /><br />Professor Black is wrong. There are currently active Federal indictments for Al-Megrahi and Fhimah.<br /><br />United States District Court<br />For the District of Columbia<br /><br />Holding a Criminal Term<br /><br /><br />United States of America<br /><br />v.<br />ABDELBASSET ALI AL-MEGRAHI,<br />A/K/A ABDELBASET ALI MOHAMED,<br />A/K/A ABDELBASET ALI MOHAMED AL-MEGRAHI,<br />A/K/A "MR.BASET",<br />A/K/A AHMED KHALIFA ABUSAMAD;<br /><br />LAMEN KHALIFA FHIMA,<br />A/K/A AL AMIN KHALIFA FHIMA,<br />A/K/A "MR. LAMIN"<br /><br /><br />Criminal no.<br /><br /><br />Grand Jury Original<br /><br /><br />Violations: 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 32, 34, 844(i), 2331, and 2<br /><br />(Conspiracy to Destroy a Civil Aircraft of the United States,<br />to Destroy a Vehicle Used in Foreign Commerce by Means of an Explosive,<br />to Kill Nationals of the United States,<br />Destroying a Civil Aircraft;<br />Destroying a Vehicle Used in Commerce by Means of an Explosive;<br />Killing Nationals of the United States;<br />Aiding and Abetting)<br />Al-MegrahiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-15558611557215051042011-07-22T00:40:02.446+01:002011-07-22T00:40:02.446+01:00Let me ask the simplest and most relevant question...Let me ask the simplest and most relevant question:<br /><br />Why is it that Al-Megrahi dropped his appeal? <br /><br />It wasn't required for Compassionate Release.<br /><br />It now leaves you all (JFM) with really nowhere to go with this in Scotland. Even if the SCCRC report is released (and I doubt it will), where do you go with that?<br /><br />That's why I have said: You all should push for the US charges to be pushed forward to exonerate Mr. Al-Megrahi. <br /><br />If you are so certain in your position and evidence, what better way to embarrass the evil USA than to make it look like a monkey in its own court system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-10954113118783777792011-07-21T21:11:21.244+01:002011-07-21T21:11:21.244+01:00Oh good grief, another "we're Americans a...Oh good grief, another "we're Americans and the fount of all virtue" believer. What planet are you on?<br /><br />I too have no idea why the SNP government is behaving as it is. I don't leap from that observation to an immediate belief in a suspension of the validity of reason and logic though. And that suspension is what it takes to believe in Megrahi's guilt on the evidence as it is known.<br /><br />Can you really look at the photographs, and the discrepancies between Tony Gauci's description of the clothes purchaser and Megrahi, and declare that beyond reasonable doubt, Megrahi bought these clothes? It's ridiculous.<br /><br />And what makes you think the bomb was ever anywhere near Malta, let alone travelled on KM180? There isn't the slightest shred of evidence that ever happened, despite a lot of people wasting a lot of time and effort trying to find it.<br /><br />But stay in your happy bubble of belief in your national benevolence, and turn away from the evidence that the CIA and the DoJ actively bribed and threatened Giaka in order to bolster up that piss-poor case.<br /><br />There's nothing quite like an American prosecutor hell-bent on getting a conviction. There's nothing quite like Americans for self-righteous vengeance and vindictiveness - all the while going on about what great guys the are.<br /><br />The people who need throwing under a bus as regards Lockerbie are the BAA and Heathrow airport, who were insulated from serious inquiry about that bomb from the get-go. Pure coincidence set the boys in blue baying off to Malta for no particularly good reason, and it was Megrahi's bad luck to be the suspicious-looking guy who happened to be there at the right time. Meanwhile we can all throw around innuendo about Malta airport security while ignoring two engraved invitations to terrorists a lot nearer home - Heathrow and Frankfurt.<br /><br />And if you can't see that, I suggest you go look at the actual evidence again.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.com