The US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.
We were lied to by the Federal Government. I am so surprised.
Oh my…..after all that
I think this is significant news. The Obama administration has managed to surprise even me. Up till now all of his actions have been predictable and unsurprising to me.
But this . . .
Just sick.
Oh no! Obama Lied?
There was no lying by the administration – they were merely
economical with the truth. Our “betters” in society really do
know what’s best. Consider Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind
of the 9/11 atrocities. If he were to develop some serious illness
during or after his trial, Mr. Obama or the U.S. attorney general
(Mr. Eric Holder) would no doubt order his release on compassionate
grounds. Being our “betters”, they do know that an expansive show
of compassion trumps the administration of justice. This takes
considerable courage on the part of the administration. After all,
the “little people” seem to have an adequate understanding of
justice, but they are rather more limited in their ability to
comprehend compassion.
Why should we be surprised that a POTUS named Barack HUSSEIN Obama did this?
The US position was one of opposition. I don’t see how there could be any reasonable conclusion that the US “backed” the release of this guy. The sub=part discussed in the link was that, given that the Scots seemed to have decided to release him, what conditions should be placed on the release. The letter opposes returning him to Libya, where the US feared he might receive a hero’s welcome, and favors his being kept in Scotland if he were released. Indeed US concerns on that point proved valid.
In any event, I don’t know what the President’s name has to do with this (No. 6). I suspect the US opposition would have been the essentially the same whatever a given White House occupant’s name was. Why would a name make a difference?