...and you shall be forgiven

Here was Obama's comment on the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the man convicted (most likely falsely) of the Lockerbie bombing:

We have been in contact with the Scottish government, indicating that we objected to this.  And we thought it was a mistake.  We're now in contact with the Libyan government, and want to make sure that if in fact this transfer has taken place, that he's not welcomed back in some way, but instead should be under house arrest.

And his press secretary's response after the actual arrival a few days later:

MR. GIBBS: I think the images that we saw in Libya yesterday were outrageous and disgusting. We continue to express our condolences to the families that lost a loved one as a result of this terrorist murder. We communicated with the Libyan government, and we continue to watch what they do in the days going forward about this individual, and understand that the video that you saw yesterday is tremendously offensive to the survivors that, as I said, lost a loved one in 1988.

Yes, how outrageous and disgusting it is to honor those who've taken hundreds of innocent lives.  We would never do something so tremendously offensive here.  And if you doubt that, just look at how the U.S. handled the return of the crew of the U.S.S. Vincennes, which shot down Iran Air flight 655 over the Strait of Hormuz in 1988, killing all 290 people on board:

In the end, nothing in the way of punishment happened to [Captain Will C.] Rogers and his crew. Rogers became a military instructor, and then retired in 1991. The crew of the Vincennes received combat-action ribbons. The air warfare coordinator on board, Lt. Cmdr. Scott Lustig, received a commendation medal for his ability to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure"--the same firing procedure that shot down Flight 655.

As Vice President George H.W. Bush said at the time, "I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are."  And in a special irony bonus, assuming it was in fact Iran that sponsored the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, it was almost certainly in retaliation for the killing of those 290 people on Iran Air flight 655.

But despite the intense hypocrisy and the textbook example of blowback here, the main thing I felt about this was pleasant surprise to see that Scotland is capable of acting like a civilized country (even in the face of massive pressure from the U.S. and others).  Setting aside the issue of Al Megrahi's innocence entirely, I think it's important to have such a prominent example of compassion trumping the kind of obscene culture of punishment we've created in this country.

Comments

[KDelphi]

Yes, especially in light of all the non-prosecuted mercenaries that Obama has re-hired (and expanded their missions!)

I also wondered about the media's speaking of the "heroics" of the Navy Seals that "took out" the Somali "pirates" who , obviously , were seeking money and it was a merchant ship, which , I dont think , should be under the protection of US forces...hypocrisy.

[John Caruso]

It only seems like hypocrisy until you accept that compared to Americans, nobody else on the planet can really be considered fully human.

[john]

Well, I will never apologize for not being human - I don't care what the facts are. And maybe all of us one day shall be honored to "complete the firing procedure."

Oh, and (again) the captain was named Will Rogers. Oh dear.

[SteveB]

the main thing I felt about this was pleasant surprise to see that Scotland is capable of acting like a civilized country...

Sorry, I know pleasant surprises aren't easy to come by, but:

BP was finally given the go-ahead six weeks after a volte-face by the British government to include Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya under which prisoners could serve out sentences in their home countries. Jack Straw, the justice secretary, revealed this decision in a letter to his Scottish counterpart. He cited “wider negotiations” and the “overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom”.

Sources in the UK and Tripoli said last week that those wider interests included BP’s hoped-for share of Libya’s untapped oil and gas reserves. The decision to include Megrahi in the prisoner transfer arrangement was seen by Libyan officials as paving the way for his release — and BP’s much-coveted deal was finally ratified.

[KDelphi]

SteveB--I had heard that one.

'merkins should never have to apologize for being reptilian. Damn straight.

[John Caruso]

I've read about it as well, but I'd be careful about putting credence in it because it's being pushed by the Murdoch-owned press in the UK who've gone into full frothing insane mode over Al Megrahi's release (in fact Fox is where I saw it). They're seizing on anything they can to prove there was no justification for Al Megrahi's release—a telling reaction compared to their complete lack of concern for the evidence that strongly suggests Al Megrahi's innocence.

And ultimately it doesn't matter in terms of what I said in the last sentence of the posting, because no matter whether they're entirely sincere or entirely cynical I think it's important to have had these words in the public record:

Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

For these reasons - and these reasons alone - it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.

[KDelphi]

I dont disagree. They were following Scottish law and, Scottish law shows mercy and compassion, something we are unaccoustomed to showing or recieving.

[SteveB]

Is it British law or Scottish law that prevails? The report above says it was a decision by the British justice secretary, who "revealed this decision in a letter to his Scottish counterpart."

And I'm as skeptical of Murdoch-owned media as the next guy, but usually media bias doesn't show itself by manufacturing nonexistent letters from the British justice secretary. Rather, it usually works by calling attention - in selected cases - to information they'd just as easily ignore, if inconvenient to Murdoch's interests. Like, for example, a deal between the Reagan Administration and the Iranians involving the trading of arms for hostages.

[John Caruso]

...usually media bias doesn't show itself by manufacturing nonexistent letters from the British justice secretary.

I didn't say the letters are forged (though we know that's not exactly uncommon)—but so far nobody's even seen them but the Times of London. And if you read the various articles they've been publishing about this you'll see there's plenty of smoke being blown, but no smoking gun. Basically this is a convoluted issue that the Times is trying to sell as a simple quid pro quo, because it suits their ideological agenda to do so. That doesn't mean there's nothing at all to it, but the notion that there was a direct BP-contract-for-Megrahi-release quid pro quo, or that that was the sole or even primary factor in Al Megrahi's ultimate release, isn't proven by anything I've read so far.

And again, I personally don't really care about following the Times of London's jihad on this point, because I think justice was done regardless of what other considerations entered into it. And if you're just taking exception to me mentioning Scotland's actions in a positive light, consider that the Scottish system at least provides a working mechanism for this release to occur (that's what I meant by "is capable of").

[John Caruso]

By the way, the decision you mention that was "revealed" was apparently just that Al Megrahi wouldn't be excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement. That appears to be the primary basis for the accusation of a direct quid pro quo: that Jack Straw gave up on trying to get the exclusion for Al Megrahi that the Scottish government wanted. But that still leaves open various questions, like: why did the Scottish government not exercise the veto they supposedly still had in this case? Were the UK government's condemnations of the release just kabuki theater? Why did MacAskill agree to act as the fall guy? Or was he in on it at all? If so, why didn't he respond to the first prisoner transfer request and instead delay until getting Al Megrahi's application for compassionate release? And if not, isn't this all moot? Etc, etc.