White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber

[tryfuhl]

Well they were fine with him dying in Scottish prison, just not Libyan. For what reason I'm not sure. I'm sure Libyan prison systems are more harsh and also probably more susceptible to bribe-releases. Or maybe it's due to him not receiving decent care in a Libyan prison, which would be less palatable for me to accept. I wouldn't mind seeing the letter because it can sway either way.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Well they were fine with him dying in Scottish prison, just not Libyan. For what reason I'm not sure. I'm sure Libyan prison systems are more harsh and also probably more susceptible to bribe-releases. Or maybe it's due to him not receiving decent care in a Libyan prison, which would be less palatable for me to accept. I wouldn't mind seeing the letter because it can sway either way.

I'm guessing they want to ship gitmo detainees to libya. Regardless, the Scotts are free to do as they please and the article title is misleading.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm guessing they want to ship gitmo detainees to libya. Regardless, the Scotts are free to do as they please and the article title is misleading.

After reading a few articles about this, I agree that the article title is a bit misleading. It's not like Obama and Co said, "hey, let the guy go." It still doesn't sit well with me that they weren't overly opposed to "compassionate release," and it doesn't excuse The Lord's BS about being "surprised, disappointed, and angry" about his release. He knew what was coming. Otherwise he and his ilk wouldn't be trying to keep said correspondence secret.

But hey, BP now gets to drill off of Libya. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

After reading a few articles about this, I agree that the article title is a bit misleading. It's not like Obama and Co said, "hey, let the guy go." It still doesn't sit well with me that they weren't overly opposed to "compassionate release," and it doesn't excuse The Lord's BS about being "surprised, disappointed, and angry" about his release. He knew what was coming. Otherwise he and his ilk wouldn't be trying to keep said correspondence secret.

But hey, BP now gets to drill off of Libya. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

The Scotts have laws...the administration can voice its concerns to the Scottish Government but their courts and review boards make the decisions. If they're going to just transfer him it's completely worthless because they will free him. Now if you release him you can a) get oil, b) repatriation the some of Libyan gitmo detainees, c) it never hurts to look merciful, and d) it's not a battle worth fighting due to his impending death and lack of control.


You're confusing the being surprised at the decision that was made vs the knowledge of the choices they have in front of them and your own preferences. So yes, you can be surprised. It's all PR though...it really doesn't mean anything.


Would I have let him go? Hell no, especially if the evidence was overwhelming and he really is guilty. I'd put him in a see through box, put a camera outside that box and broadcast his imprisonment and slow death of cancer on the internet. Do I have to give him cancer medication?