Thursday, August 20, 2009

The statement of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbasset Ali Al Megrahis, upon his release from prison in Scotland, will likely not satisfy the surviving American or British relatives of the victims of the crime. To those who believe he is guilty, the only possible comfort they can find now is in the fact that he was convicted, spent years in a Scottish prison and now, upon his release, may soon die from prostate cancer.

Nevertheless. when he does finally die, it will be as a free man, in his native Libya.

Not being familiar with the case, I will not comment as to his guilt or innocence. He was caught on camera purchasing something, and this seems to be the main strength of the original case against him. Many dispute the veracity of the prosecution and the conviction, perhaps with good cause.

It is no great stretch of the imagination for me to believe that a Scottish court would go out of their way to secure a conviction whether the person it was most convenient to try was actually guilty or not. Nor would I find it any harder to believe from any other European court. Or for that matter an American one.

Some people are already crying conspiracy. Muammar Khadafi, the ruler of Libya, has strong ties to the man's family, and to his tribe. He is also sitting on a respectable supply of oil reserves, which might greatly benefit Scotland's energy needs.

However, whatever the case as to the guilt or innocence of this man, the time for outrage passed more than twenty years ago, when a morally weak and bankrupt US and Britain failed to attack Khadafi, who was in fact the truly guilty party of the case. The fact that he still after more than two decades retains his power over his country is testament to the weakness of the European and American alliance, and might well be considered Exhibit A as to why NATO should disband. To be fair, a few cruise missiles were launched, and Khadafi went into political hibernation, from that point on never to raise another stir. But it was still not enough. While we may or may not be about to witness the release from prison of a guilty man, or an innocent man, one thing is for sure. We let Muammar Khafafi get by with what was tantamount to a slap on the wrist.

By the way, there is one other factor here that calls for comment. I for one never realized that Scotland had enough autonomy from Great Britain to make such a decision. That's something anyway.

5 comments:

Frank Partisan said...

I have to study up on this issue.

In Scotland is a strong nationalist tendency developing. It's strong enough, as to not listen to Britain.

The US couldn't invade Libya, because it was still licking its wounds over Vietnam.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I might need to study up on it myself, Ren. I might have misspoke about the US launching missiles at Khadafi in retaliation. That might have happened earlier over another issue. If so, that makes it even worse, for two reasons. One, it would mean that the noted attack on Khadafi, whenever it occurred, wasn't quite as effective as we thought it was. Two, it would mean we actually didn't even do that much in retaliation against Khadafi over the Lockerbie bombing.

Of course, to be fair, Reagan was in his last month in office and Bush, who had already been elected to his one term, was due to take over in a month. It could be Reagan didn't want to leave office by saddling his successor with a war that might have inflamed the entire Middle East over one incident.

Frank Partisan said...

Some say Iran was behind it.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Behind the Lockerbie bombing? I don't believe that. Iran is a convenient boogie man for all the world's ills, in those cases where the world needs a more convincing scapegoat than the US. This would be such a case.

They are especially disliked by the Arab regimes in Sunni majority nations. There are valid reasons to look upon them with suspicion in a lot of cases, but I don't think this is such a case.

I'm still not sure about this guy. He was in the process of conducting an appeal, and a good many knowledgeable people dispute the evidence against him.

Knowing what we know now, how do we know there wasn't a suicide bomber on board the plane who went along for the ride after making sure the bomb was safely on board the cargo hold. He might have needed to be in proximity in order to ignite the explosives with a radio transmitter or something of that nature.

Back in those days, suicide bombers, people willing to blow their own selves to smithereens for their "cause", was almost unheard of. It was certainly not a well known phenomenon.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Libya was behind the Pan Am 103 bombing.

The British government could have overridden the Scottish court decision to release Al Megrahi. They didn't.