I wonder if +Tom Wright thinks now.

Labour is going to be eviserated in the next general election.

If this is true, this is truly disgusting.

As I said in my first post on this topic…quo bono?

I wonder how those scottish clerics feel about the “merciful” decision now.  It wasn’t about mercy.  It was about greed and profits and oil.  It wasn’t justice.  It wasn’t mercy.  It was business.

Lord God, I am tired of all of this.

Wow.

UnFreakingBelievable.

Unbelievable.

All of that rhetoric about “mercy” .  .  . a complete sham and fraud.

I’m sickened.

Great job, Britain.  Release a terrorist who killed hundreds—blew them out of the sky over Scotland—to a hero’s welcome.  Your soul for a mess of pottage.

Wow.

Words fail.

Best lesson for us all:  truth will always out, eventually.  And, sooner is better.

Unfortunately, this is not unbelievable.  And now terrorists of all nationalities know that the UK will fold under pressure.

Or at least under oil, Katherine.

From a previous article on T19:

...the Primus of the Scottish Epis­copal Church, the Most Revd David Chillingworth, said that the decision sent the world “an important and positive message about our values”, and was “a brave political choice taken in the face of strong pressure from outside Scotland.

“We respect and honour the cour­age which the Scottish Government has shown. On the one side of the balance is the suffering caused by this appalling act of terrorism and the need to sustain public confidence in our system of justice. On the other side is the need to consider whether, in circumstances such as these, justice should be tempered with mercy and compassion.”

The Revd Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland, said that the decision “sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not choose mercy?

[Emphasis added.]

Craven cowardice in the face of terrorism that ripped apart the bodies of 270 innocent people does indeed send a message to the world about “what it is to be Scottish”.  I hope that BP suffers the consequences of world opinion.  I will be boycotting their gas station here in town.  I hope the current governments in Scotland and England fall as a result of their “brave political choice”.  I also hope that the Scottish clerics continue to lose what little influence they have.  May they fade into the background like moss on the rocks.  May they find themselves talking in a circle amongst themselves, until Shiloh [Gen. 49:10].  Then, they can explain their support of this brave “act of mercy” to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

All those involved in this act of “mercy” are accessories after the fact to this monstrous crime.

God grant peace to the families of the victims, already suffering because of this appalling act of terrorism; suffering compounded by the government betrayal of justice and their pain, and by the idiotic words of Church leaders that were supposed to be fighting for justice on their behalf!

God have mercy!

More will come out on this story, as the Scottish Minister and Jack Straw now answer hard question, in the face of public outrage. In the Telegraph story, the Libyan tries to say the oil links are wider than the UK. At present, Straw is denying culpability on the grounds that the Scots should not have handled this as they did, on ‘compassionate grounds.’ The alternative is not at all clear.

Having lived in Scotland for ten years, and only seeing this from a distance, it does not appear that we yet know all the ugly facts. Silly comments about this being about Scottish identity are partly, though ironically, correct. The general public might have wanted to defend this as showing Scotland has its own government and can act independently of England. But we now learn that no such dynamic was really in play. Straw said he always wanted the Scots to have a veto in whatever he was arranging with Libya. And then he claims that Scotland itself did not exercise this, but went its own way with the compassionate release idea. What we will now need to see if what was being intimated behind the scenes. It appears that the release was somehow connected with the Straw negotiations, and that likely explains why neither Brown nor his colleagues are condemning the decision. And it must be remembered how nutty the present system is, for Westminster has Scottish MPs—including Brown himself and other Sr ministers. This overlap with a devolved Scottish Parliament is a real mess, in my view. But I agree with 8—the truth will come out.

‘if’ should be ‘is’ above. Sorry. My point was that we are going to have to learn what kind of behind-the-scenes work was transpiring, if at all, that allowed this to unfold as it has. The public story is that Straw was negotiating a business deal two years ago with a Libya the West was trying to bring into sane relationship. The Lockerbie affair was a sticking point and he held the line. Then it appears he said that it would be up to Scotland to decide the matter (given devolved government). Now he is claiming that what he had in view was not what Scotland in fact did; fair enough. But is that the whole story? I suspect we will in time get the facts in this because the outcry will be enormous. The Sunday Telegraph story is worth a look.

No blood for oil?

For those interested in the news, from the Scotsman, more recently:

By Eddie Barnes
A PARLIAMENTARY inquiry is set to investigate claims that Britain made the Lockerbie bomber eligible for a return to his homeland to smooth multi-billion-pound business deals with Libya.
The foreign affairs select committee will meet next month to consider the affair after leaked letters yesterday confirmed that UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw decided two years ago that it was in the UK’s “overwhelming interests” not to exclude Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement.

A few weeks after the treaty was signed, BP finalised a huge exploration deal in Libya for oil and gas.

Mr Straw’s decision meant that Libya was able to request that the Scottish Government return the bomber under the transfer scheme – a request they subsequently refused.

The Scottish Government had asked for Megrahi to be considered separate from the deal, first raised by Tony Blair with Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in the so-called “deal in the desert”.

However, in a letter to his Scottish counterpart, Kenny MacAskill, in December 2007, Mr Straw said that, with “wider negotiations” with Libya at a “critical stage”, he had decided to accept Libyan requests for Megrahi to be part of the agreement.

First Minister Alex Salmond yesterday denied that Mr Straw’s actions had anything to do with Mr MacAskill’s release of the convicted terrorist.

Mr Straw also hit out at the claims last night, describing the suggestion he had bargained Megrahi’s release for trade as “absurd”. He pointed out that it had always been made clear to the Libyans that it was the Scottish Government, not London, which had the final say on the matter.

He said that, in 2003, an agreement was struck to allow international atomic energy inspectors to supervise the dismantling of Libya’s secret nuclear weapons programme.

“And, yes, as part of that there would be gradual normalisation of relations with Libya, with the West as a whole, not just with the United Kingdom,” he said.

The prisoner transfer agreement, he said, was part of that new relationship.

Mr Straw added: “But was there a deal? A covert, secret deal ever struck with the Libyans to release Megrahi in return for oil? No, there was not, and there is no evidence whatsoever because it is untrue.”

Megrahi, who has advanced prostate cancer, was freed by Mr MacAskill two weeks ago, but not under the prison transfer agreement. Instead, Scottish ministers agreed to free him for compassionate reasons. The first TV images of him in his hospital bed were broadcast last night. He appeared to be too sick to answer questions.

The fresh row over the Megrahi release renews pressure on the UK government. Gordon Brown has refused to say whether he approved of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people.

In the summer of 2007, the Scottish Government urged Mr Straw to make Megrahi exempt from any prison transfer agreement. Despite having a veto over his release, SNP ministers wanted his case dealt with entirely separately. Mr Straw said he would seek to do so by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

However, five months later, he wrote to Mr MacAskill saying he had been unsuccessful: “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.”

Mr Straw said last night that he had supported the Scottish Government’s request that Megrahi be “carved out” of the prison transfer agreement, but said that the Libyans had then told him it was unacceptable.

Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell, a member of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, warned last night that the revelations had “muddied the waters” over exactly what was said to the Libyans.

He said: “We need a comprehensive statement about the extent to which Megrahi’s fate may have featured in any trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and Libya. If the government fails to provide a full account of its conduct, it will simply add to speculation.”

Shadow foreign affairs minister David Lidington added: “The government’s secrecy and ambivalence is having a corrosive effect on international relations and public trust in ministers.”

However, UK officials angrily hit back against any suggestion of a prisoner-for-oil deal yesterday – pointing out that such a deal relied on the Labour government being able to win the agreement of Mr Salmond.

One senior Whitehall source said: “The notion that Jack Straw, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair made a crude deal with Col Gaddafi that relied on them delivering the agreement of Alex Salmond is not just nonsense, it is nonsense on stilts.”

The source added: “Tony Blair couldn’t stand Alex Salmond. He refused to congratulate him on his election victory. How on earth could they conspire on an oil-for-terrorists deal?”

Mr Salmond yesterday also reiterated that he had always been opposed to release under the prison transfer agreement. He said: “We didn’t think that the Lockerbie decision should be linked to trade or oil decisions.”

With a parliamentary investigation now on the cards, Megrahi himself said yesterday that he favoured a full public inquiry into the atrocity.

A public inquiry, held under a judge, would have the power to demand all documentation in the case.

Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the bombing, said that people should stop “mulling over” the decision to free Megrahi. Dr Swire, who believes that Megrahi is innocent, called on the authorities in Scotland to “take responsibility” for reviewing the conviction.

Forty pieces of silver

Robroy has asked what Bishop Wright thinks of this episode. Actually, Wright said he “abominates” the move if it was driven by a business deal. So he must have had a hint of insight into the debauchery that drove this trade. But I have to point out that this is the very reason priests and bishops need to tread lightly when it comes to politics. Reading Wright’s piece carefully, you can see that he somewhat anticipated this move, and seems to understand the nuance behind reactions on both sides. So what? Zip it, Bishop. Don’t squander your credibility. I want to hear what you have to say about the Gospel.