Saturday, August 22, 2009

Scottish Justice - or stupity?

I've already blogged about my utter disgust following the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber, a uniquely evil man. The nausea I felt watching the Scottish Justice Minister trying to justify his decision was matched by the contempt I felt watching Alex Salmond expressing his 'disappointment' at the hero's welcome given to the murderer on his arrival in Tripoli. What the ****** did he expect. As the entirely predictable consequences have played themselves out, the intensity of my antipathy has increased.

Some in the blogosphere seem to agree with this obscene decision. There are some who seem to have decided (with what evidence I've no idea) that this criminal is innocent of the crimes he has been found guilty of. There is an appeal process to deal with this. Now it seems there may be some darker duplicity behind the decision. Despite the Justice Minister's insistence that it was 'his' decision, and that it was based on 'compassion', (itself a ridiculous judgement) we now hear that Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson may have had some involvement. There's a bit more to run on this one I think. At least the Director of the FBI let the Scottish Government have what it deserved, both barrels, and between the eyes. I've rarely read such an angry letter as this. Scotland's Justice Minister has brought shame on Scotland, and delivered a damaging blow against devolution.


tcoah said...

I agree with you Glyn, the actions of the Scottish Minister responsible has made 'a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988' (Director Robert S. Mueller, III).

Living as I do inside the Washington, DC 'beltway' I can confirm that there is great despair and anger at Scotland for what has happened. And that is the danger, what that Scottish Minister did has done terrible damage to Scotland.

hmph said...

When the UK government makes a decision you disagree with, is that a 'damaging blow against the central government?' Or does it only work the one way round?

Che Grav-ara said...

"and delivered a damaging blow against devolution."

In what way is this decision one that is spesific to devolution and in what way has it damaged the idea of devolution?

Anonymous said...

Would the decision have been any different before devolution when the matter would have landed on the desk of UK Government's Home Secretary and Scottish Secretary. I think not, political and commercial considerations would have prevailed. This is a case of the big boys giving the new boy a dirty job to do and then condemning him for getting his hands dirty.

Glyn Davies said...

tcoah - Its becoming more of a mess by the minute.

hmph and Che - My point is that the decision to release such a notorious criminal is the only decision that many people will ever attribute to a Scottish Government, and it will nourish the arguments of those who seek to undermine devolution- in Wales as well as Scotland.

Anon - We are assured that this decision was taken on 'compassion' grounds by the Scottish Justice Minister. You are suggesting, as many others are doing, that it was more a case of 'realpolitic', which would at least be more understandable, if it were honestly admitted to that is.

Abdul Jones. said...

The decision to release the Libyan was taken after lengthy examination of the case.
An emminent Scottish law professor, and government advisor, Robert Black QC, who helped set up the original trial in the Netherlands has been following events.
He is totally satisfied with the move, and actually has seen documents that name and expose the "real perpetrators", who incidentally were Arab, but whose arrest and conviction would embarrass Washington.
With respect, a link to a blog written by the professor.
There already was an appeal, and Magrahi introduced the outlines of his case, which included some very incriminating evidence against the CIA and the US in general.... all sorts of double agents, large amounts of money, and a plot that puts Hollywood to fact the indignant protestations from over the pond may be just a smokescreen.

Glyn Davies said...

Abdul - It would be a terrible unfairness for a man to be wrongly convicted of such a heinous crime, but the law allows for an appeal. I would support the sentenced person proper rights of appeal, but as it stands, the man must be considered guilty.

A. Jones. said...

The appeal process, as far as I understand, had begun, and then, after the opening "arguments", as we all know, Mr Magrahi withdrew from the process, and was promptly set free.
Without doubt, you are right in describing the situation as one of "darker duplicity", indeed!
However, it might yet emerge that the Scottish politicians have taken the right steps.
Yes, technically, he has not been exonerated, however, now safely in his home, he promises to publish, as a book, the evidence that would have set him free.
Within that book, will lie the "names and games" of several prominent Arabs and Americans, who of course will deny all and any culpability, and so on, and on.
For now, perhaps I should hold my tongue, as the baton sits with the Libyans, as do prospects of several mutually lucrative contracts to supply oil and gas to UK industries.
One also notes that Saif Ghaddaffi, a forerunner to take power from his father, is now paying British taxes on a rather expensive house in Hampstead.
"Plus ca"