UK documents show Lockerbie bomber set free for oil contracts

posted at 12:30 pm on August 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Times of London continues to rip to shreds the official explanations from Edinburgh and London over the so-called “compassionate release” of Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the terrorist who killed 270 people, mostly Americans, in the 1987 bombing of Pan Am flight 103.  The Scots insisted that the release was consistent with their “values”, while the Gordon Brown government insisted that they did nothing to influence the decision.  New documents unearthed by the Times show both to be lying:

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

What does it say about the governments in Edinburgh and London that Moammar Gaddafi’s son has been more honest about this than Brown, Straw, and MacAskill?  Seif Islam (Gaddafi) had insisted from the beginning that Megrahi got exchanged for the completion of oil contracts with the Libyan government.  Perhaps Brown and his team thought Libya would be more discreet, but the Libyan government needs to build its credibility with its subjects — and freeing Megrahi would be far too tempting for public-relations purposes to remain silent.

What happens to Brown’s government now?  Will Parliament issue a vote of no confidence and force his resignation and new elections?  After this debacle, men of honor wouldn’t wait for a vote of no confidence but resign in disgrace, not just for the grubby commercial bargain but for their contemptuous lies afterward.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Then as soon as the Brits find any oil, good ole’ Mo will pull a Chavez and nationalize them. Geniuses.

innominatus on August 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Compare Crooks and Fools

At least they got some potential for profits. The goof we have in charge just wanted to cut killers free. Maybe after an expensive legal and investigative process. And the Brits aren’t busy trying to destroy British Intelligence, either.

IlikedAUH2O on August 30, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Think about this: when these horrible stories “break” and the most hurtful duplicitous lying and double-dealing come to light – think: this is ONLY one thing that we now KNOW!!! There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of other horrors that are still stinking under the mahogany desks in these ornate Government offices that lay there purifying and unbeknown yet to citizens. And with a Marxist LIAR like Obama – OMG, the stink is already so overpowering that America can no longer ignore it………….

Cinday Blackburn on August 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM

innominatus on August 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Yep. Fools. I’m getting really really sick of professional politicians. They are supposed to represent the people but that’s rarely the case anymore. It’s always the special interests that get all the consideration.

Guardian on August 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM

If Bush had done it, millions throughout Europe and the U.K. would be marching in protest already.

NO OIL FOR BLOOD. TERRORIST IN CHIEF, et al…

But, since GWB has left the scene, all “outrage” has gone, too.

Since the anarcho-left believes in nothing BUT POWER.

And to protest against their own Leftoid weasels would slow the GREAT POWER GRAB.

profitsbeard on August 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Gordon Brown is a useless and unprincipled socialist hack and the decline of the UK will not slow down with him still in office.

bayview on August 30, 2009 at 12:39 PM

So was the prognosis of three months just cover for this oil-for-terrorist deal?

LASue on August 30, 2009 at 12:39 PM

So Brittan’s government is going down, the US is headed for revolution and “V for Vendetta” is my favorite movie, and the 1812 overture my favorite music.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November.

Skandia Recluse on August 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Can’t wait to see how Barry handles this one-

anniekc on August 30, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Can’t wait to see how Barry handles this one-

anniekc on August 30, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Vacation 3.0?

profitsbeard on August 30, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Straw is going to end up a shill for OPEC or something like that.

rob verdi on August 30, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Blood for oil?

JohnJ on August 30, 2009 at 12:46 PM

They promised us…

unclesmrgol on August 30, 2009 at 12:46 PM

After this debacle, men of honor wouldn’t wait for a vote of no confidence but resign in disgrace, not just for the grubby commercial bargain but for their contemptuous lies afterward.

An honorable liberal??? Where?? Where?? If you find one capture it for display as a rare specie.

docdave on August 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

So does the dude really have cancer or was that just an excuse too?

Knucklehead on August 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

All the talk of leftist hypocrisy and double standards doesn’t take into account many details of leftist psychology. They’re not crazy, and they don’t believe they’re being hypocritical. It’s called “doublethink”, and if anyone wants an explanation of the leftist mind, that’s where it starts.

JohnJ on August 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM

So does the dude really have cancer or was that just an excuse too?

Knucklehead on August 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Apparently they only got one doctor to confirm the diagnosis and he was apparently paid for by the Libyans. Others reportedly disputed not only the timeline of life left, but whether he even had cancer.

amerpundit on August 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM

so, it wasn’t for some altruistic, sonia sotomayor sort of reason? i am shocked.

ndanielson on August 30, 2009 at 12:56 PM

The Scots insisted that the release was consistent with their “values”,

Even if that were true, I would still be ashamed of my Scottish heritage. Mass murderers deserve to die in prison.

rbj on August 30, 2009 at 12:57 PM

So does the dude really have cancer or was that just an excuse too?

Knucklehead on August 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

From what I understand, no. My grandpa died of exactly the same kind of cancer as this man and he definitely wasn’t walking off planes and getting victory parties in the 3 months before his death….

And as a medical professional, I would assess that he’s too d*mn healthy to be dying of that sort of cancer…

mjk on August 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Shouldn’t we be withdrawing our ambassador or something even more dramatic?

Lonetown on August 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Apparently they only got one doctor to confirm the diagnosis and he was apparently paid for by the Libyans. Others reportedly disputed not only the timeline of life left, but whether he even had cancer.

I hope the scumbag lives another 20 years. The world can watch him celebrate “another year of freedom” over and over again. Reminder of the sickness that is liberalism.

VegasRick on August 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Blood for oil?

JohnJ on August 30, 2009 at 12:46 PM

That’s exactly what I thought.

This time it really was blood for oil.

Once again the Left does exactly what they falsely accuse conservatives for doing.

INC on August 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

think: this is ONLY one thing that we now KNOW!!! There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of other horrors that are still stinking under the mahogany desks in these ornate Government offices

If details continue to emerge, we’ll soon learn these oil deals and Megrahi’s release were extortion payments for release of Kaddafi’s brutally tortured and prison-raped EU nurse hostages.

/quid pro quo

Terp Mole on August 30, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Shows how the US with Obama at the helm has little or no influence on other countries any more. The UK did not worry what the US would think about this.
I doubt this would happen under Bush.

So if the UK can give up a single terrorist for oil, one wonders what little Iran has to do to get the UK to fight any sanctions against Iran?

albill on August 30, 2009 at 1:15 PM

You all are missing one piece of the puzzel…

This all started being talked about TWO YEARS AGO… but he was not released then….

Why? G. W. Bush was in the Whitehouse.

Do you really think they would do somthing of this magnitude, which could upend AMERICAN politics, and our relationship, without talking to whoever is in the Whitehouse?

Obama HAD to have greenlighted this. Those are the docs which need to be found.

Romeo13 on August 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

This sort of thing is pretty common among nations when things as sustaining as oil are involved. Embarrassing, and will maybe take Brown down if anything could in that island soaking in socialist tards of all stripes.

No national governments are immune to perfidious behavior in the face of financial gain. Usually both parties keep quiet but here the folks of Islam are openly working to weaken the western nations by exposing the British as lying sacks of sh1t.

BL@KBIRD on August 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Eh, nations invariably act in their own best economic self-interests. Except of course in Obamaland. Given that Barry’s been pissing on the Brits for the last 7 months, what did our vaunted State Department expect? After all, isn’t Barry all about apologies?

GarandFan on August 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Should be called “Terrorists for Oil”.

The camel drivers and tent pitchers are winning the war.

Our ‘friends’, the British government, are speeding up the west’s demise.

Schadenfreude on August 30, 2009 at 1:17 PM

So right now I would run out of gas and walk before I filled up at Citgo. Does this mean BP to?

Caper29 on August 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Eh, nations invariably act in their own best economic self-interests. Except of course in Obamaland. Given that Barry’s been pissing on the Brits for the last 7 months, what did our vaunted State Department expect? After all, isn’t Barry all about apologies?

GarandFan on August 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Ono moron should never excuse another.

Schadenfreude on August 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Gordon Brown’s mug is very befitting for his intellect.

His fake indignation over the “Terrorists for Oil” tops all of them. He surpasses Obama, when he still claims to be for bipartisanship or civility.

Schadenfreude on August 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Obama HAD to have greenlighted this.

I don’t know if Obama Admin. greenlighted it exactly but they could easily have intervened to stop it just as they intervened last month in the case of Binyamin Mohamed.

aengus on August 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM

After this debacle, men of honor wouldn’t wait for a vote of no confidence but resign in disgrace

Your sentence could also have been written to describe the British parliament expense scandal that occurred ealier this year, when the British parliament for the most part was revealed to be nothing but a collection of common thieves.

Basil Fawlty on August 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Schadenfreude on August 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

No one surpasses Obama in that area.

INC on August 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM

So I guess it’s OK for the United States to start drilling for it’s own oil now………..?

Seven Percent Solution on August 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM

The Scots insisted that the release was consistent with their “values”

Hmmmm, this guy killed 270 innocent people, did 8 years in prison, then got released so the Scots values could remain intact.

Ok, soooooooooo, I guess I could kill 2 or 3 scots and only have to serve maybe a month or two and I’d be free?

Patrick S on August 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Gordon Brown along with Tony Blair need a short rope and a lamppost in their future.

el Vaquero on August 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM

I don’t know if Obama Admin. greenlighted it exactly but they could easily have intervened to stop it just as they intervened last month in the case of Binyamin Mohamed.

aengus on August 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Do you really believe that the Brits would have acted on this without getting some signal from the Whitehouse?

Remember, these were mainly Americans who were killed… and this could have serious blow back on the Relationship between Britain and the US.

This had to have started a few months ago, about the time Obama came into office… it would take a couple of months to get the Doctor on board and paid off, and to get Perp to know his “symtoms”.

When this whole thing had to have started, they could not have known how Bambi would react UNLESS they talked to him first.

Romeo13 on August 30, 2009 at 1:42 PM

What does it say about the governments in Edinburgh and London that Moammar Gaddafi’s son has been more honest about this than Brown, Straw, and MacAskill?

Nothing that we didn’t already know.

Will Parliament issue a vote of no confidence and force his resignation and new elections?

Are you kidding, Ed? No way no how. They’re going to eke out their time in power until May when they are legally required to call an election.

This is the most venal and corrupt UK administration in at least a generation.

I feel sorry for the families of the lost who were sold out, no doubt with the complicity of Obama. Brown is a very weak man and would not have made this move without US approval.

Anders on August 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Romeo13 on August 30, 2009 at 1:42 PM

I suspect you’re right and would go even further and speculate that it may have been decided from the time of Gaddafi’s weird rehabilitation by neoconservatives after giving him his nuclear program. But that’s just a guess. All we know for certain is that the Obama Admin. chose to remain passive while the UK Gov sold out of Libya and that is pretty damning in itself.

aengus on August 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM

From a profile in the New Statesman, apparently Gaddafi began realiging himself towards the US after the Cold War:

The story of how the “mad dog” came in from the cold goes back to the 1990s, when Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela persuaded the Libyan leader that the two Lockerbie suspects should stand trial (al-Megrahi’s co-defendant was acquitted). The UN immediately suspended sanctions it had imposed in 1992 and 1993. When Gaddafi was quick to condemn the attacks of 11 September 2001 as acts of terrorism, urging Libyans to donate blood for use by American victims, it seemed another remarkable volte-face by a man who would once have been expected to revel in US misfortune.

[...]

After Egypt and Israel made peace at Camp David, Gaddafi turned ever closer to the Soviet Union, which stationed thousands of military advisers inhis country and from which he bought billions of dollars of arms. But once the USSR collapsed, says Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, “he saw that if Uncle Sam was going to give him a kick, there was no one there to protect him”.

aengus on August 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM

So, the Divine notion of mercy crapped the bed then. Ok. Faith has been further cheapened by Europe. Let’s boycott food and wine from the UK – what? Ok. Let’s figure out something we can boycott from the UK and boycott it by jeepers.

ericdijon on August 30, 2009 at 1:49 PM

What happens to Brown’s government now?

Brown is toast, of course.

DrStock on August 30, 2009 at 1:49 PM

What happens to Brown’s government now?

Brown is toast, of course.

DrStock on August 30, 2009 at 1:49 PM

His party has been toast for quite a while but he’s going to go down with the ship / country.

Anders on August 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Do you really believe that the Brits would have acted on this without getting some signal from the Whitehouse?

Now where could they have gotten that signal?

Gaddafi Is Testing Obama

…With Bush it was an arm around a firefighter, and it was a positive moment; with Obama it was a handshake with Muammar Gaddafi, and it was a negative one.

Barak Obama has totally rejected the Moral of Munich, and has extended his hand to a terrorist who not only shows no contrition, but uses his meeting with the American President as a way of testing Obama’s toughness. Unfortunately, the Commander-In-Chief believes that murderers respond better to an open hand than a closed fist.

Obama greeted the release of the Pan Am 103 bomber with a few perfunctory words about how terrorism should not be tolerated, but there was no public rebuke against Libya or its dictator despite the fact that the latter sent his son to welcome home the murderer who was a Libyan operative working for the country’s leader. Through the travesty at Tripoli airport Gaddafi was testing Obama’s resolve. He must have been pleased with the results.

The next test will be soon, as Gaddafi comes to America for the first time for the UN General Assembly meeting. If Obama is silent Gaddafi will again be pleased with the outcome. So will international terrorists who refrained from attacking America after 9/11 because Bush showed them a fist.

One can only imagine what Obama’s weakness will encourage them to do.

Terp Mole on August 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM

It’s a terrific heads-up for Obama because it is so easy to see Obama making this same kind of deal sometime in the near future. What happens now in the UK will determine how far Obama is willing to stick out his own neck on behalf of the Islamofascists.

Danzo on August 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Would Britain have stooped this low had there been a president in the White House who hadn’t repeatedly dissed them and who they respected? We’ll never know, but Tony Blair would NOT have done this.

ProfessorMiao on August 30, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Here is the shiniest example of ” American respect for Islam of the day” award.

This sort of betrayal I find much more worrisome than the one featuring Britain and Libya.

BL@KBIRD on August 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the terrorist who killed 270 people, mostly Americans, in the 1987 bombing of Pan Am flight 103.

If it was mostly American, shouldn’t it be our government that dropped the ball by not protesting this release? When was this finalized?

Count to 10 on August 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM

For shame. Churchill must be spinning in his grave.

Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM

The Scots insisted that the release was consistent with their “values”

Hmmmm, this guy killed 270 innocent people, did 8 years in prison, then got released so the Scots values could remain intact.

Ok, soooooooooo, I guess I could kill 2 or 3 scots and only have to serve maybe a month or two and I’d be free?

Patrick S on August 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Do the Scots have a tradition of wergeld?
http://www.answers.com/topic/weregild

Count to 10 on August 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Shock. Dismay. Oh the humanities.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 30, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Weakness.

THE CHOSEN ONE on August 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Six months in and the Obama administration has reduced our relationship with our most important historic alley to this!

Dale Wyckoff on August 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Could this betrayal been averted with higher pay and better equipment?

Interesting they are mocking the western approach of trying to contact “moderate” elements who have more flavorful balls to lick.

BL@KBIRD on August 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM

The Scots insisted that the release was consistent with their “values”

Them Scots have sure gone down hill since the time of Braveheart.

farright on August 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Gee, I sure wish we were more like enlightened Europe.

Rollie on August 30, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Churchill tortured The One’s grandfather.

THAT would explain the Churchill bust being removed, the CD gifts, touching the Queen, etc.

Which:

1) Has nothing to do with this craven act by British officialdom.

2) Is just alleged. Like The Birth in Kenya.

3) Assumes that The One has any clue as to his family tree. Or cares.

IlikedAUH2O on August 30, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Tony Blair would NOT have done this.

ProfessorMiao on August 30, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Tony Blair initiated this I believe.

Tony Blair helped with Gadaffi’s diplomatic rehabilitation, taking high-profile trips to Libya in 2004 and 2007. At the second meeting, when an unkempt and unshaven Gadaffi met Blair in a tent in the desert, it was announced that the two countries had agreed a memorandum of understanding covering civil and criminal legal co-operation, extradition and prison transfer.

BL@KBIRD on August 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

How much is a life worth? We now know how much 270 are worth.

Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

After this debacle, men of honor wouldn’t wait for a vote of no confidence but resign in disgrace

“Men of Honor” are not found in liberal bastions. Liberal lie, slander, mock and demonize. There is no honor in the liberal mind.

enoughalready on August 30, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Obama must forcefully demand the return of his DVDs.

Maquis on August 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM

What a weasel that Jack Straw is.. Never liked him.

saus on August 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Shouldn’t we be withdrawing our ambassador or something even more dramatic?

Lonetown on August 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

No Forth of July hotdogs for you!

1921 C DRUM on August 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM

So, why did Libya want this guy back so badly they would trade him for oil?

Queen0fCups on August 30, 2009 at 5:55 PM

So, why did Libya want this guy back so badly they would trade him for oil?

Queen0fCups on August 30, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Quadaffi needs to proove his “Strongman” chops… he needed a win against the West for Internal Politics, and to show the Islamic world he is a player…

The culture in that part of the world is all about betting on the strong horse… ie… they follow the one who is winning, not the one who is Right.

In this? Quadafi won.

Romeo13 on August 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Six months in and the Obama administration has reduced our relationship with our most important historic alley to this!

Dale Wyckoff on August 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Yes but what was the nature of that relationship? Tony Blair willfully lied (WMDs able to hit London in 60 minutes) to rally people to the invasion of Iraq. He wanted in on Iraq for ego reasons alone.

Bush felt no such compunction to lie. The Brits then committed laughably small amounts of forces to the Iraq War and finally retreated from Basra to the nearby airbase, from which they soon after departed.

Staunch allies? As in Kosovo they were poseurs of the first order. They achieved nothing, at the cost of 400 soldiers deaths and untold injured servicemen and servicewomen.

Sure it suited us to have them ‘on-side’ poltiically. That was about all they provided – political cover.

What I mean to say is that the Brits have used and abused their military in an appalling manner, and continue to do so, to satisfy the egos of a few self-serving politicians. It is an absolute disgrace and is widely felt within the UK Armed Forces.

Anders on August 30, 2009 at 6:32 PM

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

davod on August 30, 2009 at 6:40 PM

One reason why we should drill our own damn oil.

Geochelone on August 30, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Obama must forcefully demand the return of his DVDs.

Maquis on August 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM

good one. Its DVDs or bust.

Geochelone on August 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM

I wonder how many barrels of oil not-at-all-Great Britain is getting for each of the 270 murdered by Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his pals.

steveegg on August 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM

And now A Q Khan mass nuclear proliferater is no longer quarantined. So I guess everyone figures it’s a free for all Obama won’t do anything?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/pakistans-nuke-grandfather-freed

Dr Evil on August 30, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I’ve got a strong feeling this POS, Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, will remain alive for quite some time. I wonder if his terminal prognosis may have been overstated a bit.

Harry S on August 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM

It’s time for the Sons of Billy Cumberland to take action against the Scots–and Gordon Brown too.

Percy_Peabody on August 30, 2009 at 9:44 PM

He wanted in on Iraq for ego reasons alone.

Strained relations between Baghdad and London may have had something to do with it.

The Brits then committed laughably small amounts of forces to the Iraq War…

Yet other pilots still managed to kill some of them in blue-on-blue incidents.

In absolute terms, the military contributions of the other Coalition partners paled beside those of the United States – in 1991 and 2003. But in both wars Britain was a significant diplomatic and military ally (as was Saudi Arabia to a much greater degree in the first round). On the other hand, unlike many of the Coalition partners in 1991 and some of the others in 2003, British troops actually fought, took, and held ground. Would that but they were recognized for this in spite of their comparative numerical inferiority.

As in Kosovo they were poseurs of the first order.

Strange that the US (and the Spanish, and the Germans, and the Italians) would “submit” to British leadership of KFOR, then. The Information Ministry of the FRY certainly condemned Nato’s first major combat operation in such terms.

Grunchy Cranola on August 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM

Pretty shabby.

Jaibones on August 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM

Churchill bust being removed, the CD gifts, touching the Queen, etc. IlikedAUH2O on August 30, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Guess two can play that “in-your-face” Chi-town game. Are those chickens coming home to roost for BHO? Premeditated disrespect for the One.

indypat on August 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM

We want…

………a shrubbery.

Brits.

juanito on August 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM

An honorable liberal??? Where?? Where?? If you find one capture it for display as a rare specie.

docdave on August 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

+1

galvestonian on August 31, 2009 at 1:51 AM

albill on August 30, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Romeo13 on August 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Whether Barry wasn’t consulted, or he gave a green light to the Brits, the outcome remains the same. In any case, this POTUS is going to be a one-term wonder blunder boy.

galvestonian on August 31, 2009 at 2:05 AM

$

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2009 at 9:23 AM

This hypocrisy is getting a bit much.I will explain why there is a muted response from the British people over his release.The special relationship that isn’t so special.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_arms_importation
That campaign of terror, waged against British citizens

for more than 30 years, was bankrolled by donations from the USA — and in those 30 years the U.S would not extradite wanted terrorists to face charges here, despite our repeated requests.
Both federal and local US courts refused extradition requests almost as policy, while the funding of the IRA continued without interruption and was still raking in the money even after 9/11, when the Americans suddenly decided that they ought to start proscribing certain terrorist groups. The IRA was not, for some time, one of the groups so proscribed.

The U.S gave visa’s to known I.R.A members to fund raise against our governments wishes.
Resulting in this,
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30003.html

Gerry Adams was given the keys to New York by Rudy Giuliani.
He has even had a street named after him.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/giuliani-gave-award-to-terror-chief

Bars in Boston had drinks called ‘kill a brit’ and ‘carbomb’(The I.R.A invented the road side bomb that is killing our soldiers and yours).Money for ‘the cause’.Killing Irish and British civilians.

Weapons sent included semtex and surface to air missiles,we didn’t intercept them all.

These were used to bomb places like Harrods on Christmas Eve.
Shopping centres the day before mothers day killing children shopping for their gifts and card’s.
On remembrance sunday they blew up a church service killing old soldiers with their medals on.

U.S money was sent to help the families of killed or imprisoned ‘comrades’ and to keep their graves nice and tidy.

The IRA nearly killed Prime Minister Thatcher and her cabinet with a bomb in 1984, and it assassinated prominent British politicians and members of the royal family.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_2531000/2531583.stm

It is actually the 30yr anniversary of the killing of Lord Mountbatten.The I.R.A did what they called ‘a spectactular’(sounds familiar).
Two high targets on the same day,with the soldiers they timed the second bomb to go off as the emergency services arrived.

Rep. Peter King–for years, the congressman was alinged with “one of the most violent terrorist groups in recent European history”–the IRA

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/member-87856-attention-politicians.html

The politician once called the IRA “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland,” he was banned from the BBC by British censors for his pro-IRA views, and he refused to denounce the IRA when one of its mortar bombs killed nine Northern Irish police officers. But Mr. King is now one of America’s most outspoken foes of terrorism.

He forged links with leaders of the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland, and in America he hooked up with Irish Northern Aid, known as Noraid, a New York based group that the American, British, and Irish governments often accused of funneling guns and money to the IRA.

He spoke regularly at Noraid protests and became close to the group’s publicity director, the Bronx lawyer Martin Galvin, a figure reviled by the British.

Much of the conventional weaponry and a great deal of the money necessary for IRA violence came from Irish-American sympathizers. Mr. King’s advocacy of the IRA’s cause encouraged that flow and earned him the deep-seated hostility of the British and Irish governments

During his visits to Ireland, Mr. King would often stay with well-known leaders of the IRA, and he socialized in IRA drinking haunts.

At one of such clubs, the Felons, membership was limited to IRA veterans who had served time in jail.

Mr. King would almost certainly have been red-flagged by British intelligence as a result, but the experience gave him plenty of material for the three novels he subsequently wrote featuring the I.R.A

Nobody deserves terrorism. We supported you following 9/11.

Boycott ,please do ,start a campaign against us all.Await the backlash and the truth.

mags on August 31, 2009 at 11:36 AM

mags: ILLICIT support from private US citizens are not morally equivalent to Kaddafi’s LICIT Libyan state-sponsorship of their IRA terrorist proxies (as your wiki source cites).

Can you please explain why the IRA victims are suing Libya, and not the US?

/qed

Terp Mole on September 1, 2009 at 9:03 AM

ILLICIT support from private US citizens are not morally equivalent to Kaddafi’s LICIT Libyan state-sponsorship of their IRA terrorist proxies (as your wiki source cites).

Why? Because Americans got killed?
Are you saying that there is moral terrorism(I.R.A) and not moral(libya)?
It would be interesting to address that.

It was your Government that issued visa’s to known terrorist’s to fund against our governments wishes,without pre-condition’s.

And it’s a flimsy distinction because if the US government had a problem with it they would have legislated to prevent . Plus you only had to attend a Patrick’s Day parade’s to witness how enthusiastically the Yanks backed Irish terrorism.

It was your government that invited known terrorists to the whitehouse for a sing-a-long.This legitimized ‘the cause’.

Didn’t George Bush say that there is no difference between terrorists and those countries that harbour and fund them, or turn a blind eye.

In fact, now that I come to think of it, both Libya and the USA were pretty much on the same side over anti-terrorism where the IRA were concerned.
Libya said,’our enemies enemy-our friend’Was the U.K your enemy as well?

‘Can you please explain why the IRA victims are suing Libya, and not the US?’

/qed

That is being debated here now.The victims will be well supported from the government and the people to bring cases against U.S support for the slaughter of british and irish civilians.

mags on September 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2