BP confirms it lobbied the British government to release Lockerbie bomber
BP admitted on July 15th that it had lobbied the British government in 2007, prior to the to release of Lockerbie bomber, for an agreement to turn over a number of prisoners to Libya, as negotiations between the two countries over the issue were impeding a contract allowing BP to drill in Libyan offshore deep waters.
Shortly after, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, convicted for the 1988 bombing of an airline jet over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, mostly Americans, was released in August of 2009 on compassionate grounds after a medical diagnosis that he was unlikely to survive more than three months from cancer. Nearly a year later, he’s not only still alive, but his doctor has now declared he could live another decade.
President Obama expressed the outrage felt by Americans not only over the decision to release Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, but over the evidence the British owned petroleum company BP played an active role in obtaining the terrorist bomber’s release.
‘I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber,’ he said, and added the diplomatic hope that ‘the key thing to understand here is that we’ve got a British prime minister who shares our anger over the decision. And so I’m fully supportive of Prime Minister Cameron’s efforts to gain a better understanding of it.’
Except David Cameron has made it as pristine clear as the water in the Gulf of Mexico used to be that he has no intention whatsoever of doing any such thing. He announced on Tuesday that while he’d consider releasing information from an earlier investigation, he would not order a fresh investigation into either the bomber’s release, or – more importantly – BP’s role in obtaining it. Further, he managed to shift any blame from the British government onto the Scottish Executive (although, last time I looked I was pretty sure Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom), and further added insult to injury by castigating the decision to – in effect – trade terrorists for oil as ‘wholly wrong and misguided decision, a bad decision, but their decision, nonetheless.’ As for BP’s role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Cameron has already made up his mind, insisting he has seen nothing to suggest that the Scottish government was influenced by lobbying from BP.
So, if it’s left up to the British, that will remain the official bottom line. Nothing to see here, guv’nor, move along. Cameron brushed aside any pressure for further investigation as being unnecessary, saying, ‘I don’t think there’s any great mystery here. That’s what happened, and I don’t think we need an extra inquiry to tell us that that’s what happened.’
In the next breath, his real reticence for an investigation into the circumstances behind the Lockerbie bomber’s release and BP’s role in facilitating it becomes quite apparent: ‘Let us not confuse the oil spill with the Libyan bomber,’ as BP’s ‘success’ is vital to British and US economies.
Truth and justice be damned. The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, so what? BP buying off governments, who cares? The deaths of 270 innocent people, get real.
It’s all about money. That’s the only thing that matters. Meanwhile, BP announced Thursday that, despite calls for a moratorium over the company’s links to the Lockerbie bomber, it plans to start drilling off the coast of Libya within the next few weeks. So while Cameron and Obama joke in front of the cameras about beer and coercing their kids into cleaning their rooms, and highlight that ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the United States, those of us behind the cameras, and behind the television sets, can rest assured that it’s all business as usual.
I don’t know why Republicans are so upset – at this rate, they might as well have won the election.
There's no crime, no act of treason too small or too great that British Petrol won't commit against humanity. Absolutely nothing.
by the death of eleven crewmen on their rig. It's not even a toll high enough to register.
Scoundrels!!!
Vile pestilence ridden plague rats!!!
from the Gulf disaster.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
.
First BP denied the charges...
... Then they said they didn't lobby for the Pan Am bomber.
First the British govt. denied the charges...
... Next, will the British govt. admit they lobbied to release a terrorist?
BP trading lives for money...
... Just like any 'ol terrorist Corporation.
BP = ECO TERRORIST CORPORATION
Terrorises the ECOLOGY
Terrorises the ECONOMY
and lobbies for TERRORISTS.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
cheap pimp.
They're a $100 billion year pimp, "cheap" is not the adjective that comes to mind with those figures ;-)
Apparently, the stock market found those news "agreeable" since BP's shares went up.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
true.
Let's see here.
Republicans support BP
BP supports Terrorist Bombers
Therefore Republicans support Terrorist Bombers
Someone ask Faux News if I did that right.
and on and on...wow...now THAT should be the talking point for the Dems! If the spineless twits in Congress (with the exception of a few) would get their damn act together..........
Wing it to your congresscritters and see what happens (as in how fast they turn tail and hide...)
They only support terrorist bombers when there's money to be made by supporting them. They're very patriotically opposed to terrorist bombers when there's money to be made that way.
.
..they should hire you in a New York minute!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
I will be SOOOO happy when we finally run out of oil, just so we don't have to jump through any more gd hoops so that some big oil corporation can squeeze one more drop out of the ground, at the cost of all of our national security and treasure.
We need renewables, now! WTF are we waiting for???
You don't think they're planning for that? Right now, BP scientists are trying to figure out how to make solar energy poisonous and windmills that have to be lubricated with infant blood.
the research and development of renewable resources?
Not really a question.
Okay, leaving aside that I actually agree with the point you're trying to make (and I do) this is a terrible article for one big and important reason and it's this bit of ill-informed snark -
"Further, he managed to shift any blame from the British government onto the Scottish Executive (although, last time I looked I was pretty sure Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom)"
You've failed to understand the relationship between the UK govt (based in London) and the Scots govt (based in Edinburgh). Think of it as being like your own federal govt/state split. The power to release (or not) the Lockerbie bomber was a power that the 'state' govt alone had. The 'federal' govt played no part in it and could play no part in it. It's like you blaming the US federal govt for something done by a state legislature in an area where power is reserved to the states.
Now, I'm going to get flamed for saying that, but those are the facts about how it works. Sorry, but it's true.
That is an important thing to point out, though it's possible that the author is a Federalist and just wouldn't really be in favour of States' rights in the US and would argue that the Federal government should be able to overrule these sorts of decision because, say, Texas is part of the US.
In this event BP is just like any company with shareholders - it asked the government to do something that benefits its shareholders, many of whom are citizens of the government in question. It's a common sense thing for BP to do and we've seen how much it happens in the US over the last few years, so any anti-British sentiment over this is childish at best.
Further to that, though, this is such a ridiculous non-issue. Decision made to not further punish dying man because doing so has negative effects on tax revenues. Big deal. What is prison supposed to be? A place where we punish people in some sort of eternal torment because they did something wrong in the past? Surely prison should be about doing what is best for society. He's not likely to commit a similar crime again, letting him out benefits the society of the people making the decision (given the amount of oil expertise in Scotland). Leaving emotion out of the decision I can't really see a down side.
If you had lost a loved one in that flight, I am sure you could see plenty of the down sides brought forth when injuries are compounded with insult.
The bomber who supposedly had only "a few weeks" to live has managed to outlive that cancer for over a year since his release, and now his life expectancy has been revised to a couple of decades at least. In case it is not clear: two months to live vs two decades to live are two very different issues from a "humanely ever so concerned" stand.
But then again, as long as a corporation is making money for their shareholders anything goes and releasing a terrorist who killed a few hundred people is OK, since apparently that is the only reason for us to exist on this green earth. No?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
So it is better to just make him suffer as punishment because that will somehow make those who lost people happy? Rather than let him out with benefits for society, you would prefer him to rot in prison for no other reason that retribution?
So yes, given that the only benefit of keeping him in prison is to safisfy people who like to punish people, I don't see a down side to releasing him.
Mossad..
All fixed..
Where are the cries for a cruise missile attack on BP's
operations in Libya. Maybe it's time for the US military
to kick some British ass. History repeating-they've sacked and burned DC once again, why can't we strike back? This is an act of WAR!
they didn't have anything to trade for oil leases.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
i think the only remarkable thing about this story is that it was made public.
other than that it seems pretty standard: some corporation exerts pressure on the govt to do something that helps said corporation's bottom line--despite risks to national security and the fact that it wouldn't be supported by the public--and govt does such without full disclosure.
I say start a British boycott now-make it clear
that the royals are not welcome here unless they
want to be tarred and feathered, and demand our
military stop patronizing BP, otherwise the military
leaders in charge of fuel procurement face the same
tar and feathering.
Does that mean I have to burn my Beatle boots and wigs?
I already did with these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRLrZ66bwPQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
You are a fool.
Boycott Britain? This issue has NOTHING to do with Britain. BP is 7% owned by a single british firm, while is owned more than 35% by American firms.
Sloppy 'journalism' like this is why Americans get a reputation for being ignorant, uninformed foaming-at-the-mouth idiots.
Read more.
I saw this on Yahoo news:
Obama Signs Sweeping Financial Overhaul Into Law
(I bet the custodians are pissed).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The so-called Lockerbie bomber probably didn't do it. The book, "Trail of the Octopus -- From Beirut to Lockerbie," by former DIA agent, Lester Coleman, shows how it was probably a DIA/DEA sting operation gone wrong. You can read the whole book for free here.
One reason it was so easy for BP to negotiate al-Megrahi's release is that Scotland Yard knew they had the wrong guy all along.
he thinks it was the Mossad.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
?
Either he's the third gunman at the St. Valentine's Day Massacre or the guy that delivers the Dominoes Pizzas to the White House Press Room.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
From the British side of the Atlantic it is becoming comical how deluded, conspiratorial and down-right wrong the American media and government are on this issue.
It is true that BP wanted access to Libyan oilfields, as did American multinationals, and lobbied the British government with regard to the PTA signed by Blair and Ghaddafi in 2007. (Something that was known about in Britain at the time, but which wasn't thought to be importnat by either you media or government.)
However, this PTA was not the reason why he was released; the Scottish government have made it clear, since the deal was originaly signed, that it was wrong to include Megrahi in such a deal because of the stench of corruption. Instead, they followed due process and Scots law and released him on compassionate grounds. Now you may not agree with the decision, but what can't the criticised is the process that the Scottish government followed.
In addition, this notion that the Scottish government did the bidding of London betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the political realities of the British Isles. Alex Salmond would no more take orders from Tony Blair than he would cut of his own bollocks.
While you have good reason to dislike BP for what happened in the Gulf, the attack by the Senators over Lockerbie looks malicious interference by people who don't know what they are talking about.
.
the scots lied
the question is why did they lie and how much caishe did bp hand them
no due process was followed here...and you know it
death of another human being who may have been framed. Thank you for clarifying the governmental thing.
it must be for an infallible reason and carried out by a perfect system.
First off, if that is the case, let me congratulate you on having he only perfect government in the world.
Second, the issue is not wether the terrorist was incorrectly tried and thus deserved his freedom. The issue is that he was freed under "humanitarian" reasons, which have now proven to be kind of dishonestly overblown. Thus casting doubt in both the decision itself, and the timing.
You are simply choosing to ignore the timing as being somehow unrelated at all, while pretending the faulty decision was somehow a "feature" because somehow you can twist it into a positive side effect of balances and checks at work.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvjgZeialeY
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Where is Barton and the other Tea Party clowns defending BP?
Heh. This is a conservative's nightmare: Big business profits from releasing a (possibly) innocent Muslim.
But... but... profits are everything... but... but... have to fight terrorism... but... ERROR
Landrew, Landrew Landrew????
Where's Capt Kirk when you need him!
"Look out!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! - Landrieu, or is it Landrew?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
who knew?
me-oww!
BP actually did it? Shocking...shocking I tell ya!
They're the company in charge of the oil leak...aren't they?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
because the word "Evil" was already taken. I hope they go bankrupt over the act of war they have committed against the US, Mexico and the Carribean nations with the gulf oil spill. the world would be a better place with BP, or any subsidiary of BP, not in it.
their tony wears all those fluffy curls to cover up his horns.
at what point does the u.s. or the international community take some sort of action against these criminals?
the security this website has for registration is goofy.
who was supposed to die in 3 months, may live for at least another decade or two
both the scots and bp have blood on their hands
a pox on both their houses
Do some research.
The Austrian professor who was appointed by the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands today commented on reports in the Scottish and British media about new doubts on the handling of the case by the judicial authorities.
Dr. Hans Koechler said that the dramatic shortcomings and errors in the conduct of the trial that have been brought to the attention of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) confirm his earlier assessment that the Lockerbie trial resulted in a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” (BBC News, 14 March 2002) Dr. Koechler pointed to the following information that transpired in the media and that puts in doubt the very integrity of the judicial process in the Lockerbie case:
many here are fed-up with umpteenth battle loss concerning a terrorist.
We See Them as: Primitive with Kalashnikov rifles planting IED's after we fall asleep.
They See Us as: Megalith monsters of world domination that need an occasional stick tossed into our race bike spokes just to let the world know that we are wrong wrong wrong - still.
we gave them the stick and taught them how to jam it into spokes.
yet when I feed the cat, I'm not concerned about getting scratched during the night.
A better analogy would be if you were training a pit bull to attack your neighbor and it attacked you instead.
but I still don't get it when a pit bull owner keeps explaining that the dog is really a cool animal and that I shouldn't be afraid (as the pit bull strains and slobbers against the tightening leash as if I'm more interesting than anything).
Liespotting :
http://www.asylum.com/2010/07/09/liespotting-...
what point you're trying to make. What I'm saying is that most of what the M$M refers to as terrorism has some link to (pick one or more) MI5, CIA, FBI, DIA, DEA, etc., and that Muslim extremism was inspired and/or created and/or encouraged, as the case may be, by neoconservative leaders.
to drop into WTC '93 ?
And it's "funny" that you mention dreams here when I just got done watching the trailer for Inception.
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/inception/
Then how do you get a puzzle piece to drop into WTC '93 ?
What do you mean?
neoconservative leaders were making world policy within the time span of the Clinton Admin then how during that time was there a lack of inward investigation?
Why outward?
That's the piece that gets jammed into WTC93 - like it doesn't fit.
Are you asking why didn't Clinton investigate the FBI?
subject matter disintegration... can't hold conversation... getting weak...
But wait - there's more!
You're saying that FBI was neoconservative movement? I didn't get that part.
darn puzzles - caramba.
http://wikimapia.org/5750201/Remains-of-the-M...
Aiding a terrorist is now ok? Are there any politicians not bought off who will have the BP management thrown in jail?
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
The Brits and Spain also intervened in Chile's affairs and argued that Pinochet wasn't fit to stand trial only a few years before he admitted killing innocent people?
I am sorry, but I must point some factual innaccuracies regarding this report.
To preface this, I will say that I am an avid reader of C&L and find your articles, on the whole, illuminating and well written. However, this particular article falls far short of yoru usual high standard.
Firstly, Scotland has entirely devolved powers regarding it's judiciary and any decision made regarding the release of a prisoner is the purview of the Scottish government rather than Westminster. To say that somehow the responsibility for the release desicion is with anyone other than the Scottish Justice secretary indicates a distinct lack of understanding of how devolved powers in the UK work.
Secondly, BP is NOT British owned. The largest share holder of BP is JPMorgan Chase, which last time I looked was an American institution. The Acronym BP also has nothing to do with Britain, British or Blighty. Fanning anti-british sentiment over this is simply idiotic.
Thirdly, while BP did lobby the Scottish and UK government to have greater scope in prisoner-transfer agreements with Libya, Al-Megrahi was not mentioned by name. Your report would seem to argue otherwise. This too has no basis in fact.
Many thanks for your time.
Jake
I also follow C&L regularly, but the anti-BP posts in the last few weeks have become more than a little tedious, not least in some of the comments that come out. They're up to youtube standards in places! For a fairly left-wing website the articles have swung surprisingly anti-foreign-people recently.
Comments are closed on this entry