Senators: Did BP help secure Lockerbie bomber's freedom?

Senators: Did BP help secure Lockerbie bomber's freedom?

rawstory.com

US senators urged US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to investigate whether oil giant BP pressed Britain to free the Lockerbie bomber to protect a lucrative deal with Libya.

"Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people," said Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Expert: Lockerbie Bomber Could Live Much Longer
BP's extremely long list of violations (in only a few short years)

The lawmakers pointed to a September 2009 report in Britain's Times newspaper -- denied by BP -- that the oil giant lobbied British Justice Secretary Jack Straw for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi to safeguard a 2007 oil exploration deal valued at 900 million dollars.

It goes without saying that the implications of this are huge. I think most of have no doubt that he was released to protect lucrative oil deals with Libya, though I'm sure the rabbit hole gets much deeper than that. I only hope that more information will come from this.

To be quite frank, I'm surprised to see our government actually pursuing this.

It is more clear than ever that BP was about profits more than anything else.

--airspoon



rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by airspoon


What do you expect BP to be about? They are a corporation that's in it to make money. That's what corporations do, they maximize profits to make money for their executives and shareholders.

Do you expect them to care about anything else?



[edit on 7/14/2010 by Erasurehead]

reply to post by Erasurehead


Even corporations are supposed to work within the law. This isn't so much about the corporation itself, as it is about the executives of the corporation.

Now, I'm under no illusion that extremely large corporations follow the law but that certainly doesn't mean that they should be able to get away with it.

If indeed this is true, then BP needs to be held accountable for supporting terror and hopefully this will remove that company from our shores so that someone with an interest in cleaning up the oil can take over. As long as BP is in charge of the oil spill operations, profit is going to come before the Gulf of Mexico and the residents who reside around it.

It's about time some jail cells or execution poles are filled.

--airspoon

[edit on 14-7-2010 by airspoon]

Well seeing how Libya is interested in buying a huge chunk of BP through shares. This story might have some water.

Need to get more information about this.

Libya urged to buy BP shares

Though I think they want to make it look like they are being urged, what I sense is that such a takeover or purchase was already pre-planned and the only way Libya could be woo'd was by somehow freeing the Lockerbie bomber.

Originally posted by airspoon

To be quite frank, I'm surprised to see our government actually pursuing this.

The reason why is because the man was in all likelihood innocent, and that the government of the United States paid millions in backhanders to witnesses that had never seen the man in question before... aside from photographs handed to them by the very same government and CIA so they could identify him.

The whole case stinks. Many believe the CIA themselves were the ones who let off the bomb.

reply to post by Goathief


Dont consider yourself to be "many" and those who sympathize with murderers of innocent to be "many".

Just look at the celebrations this guy enjoyed and cheers he got about killing those innocent people when he arrived home.

reply to post by prionace glauca


So no comment about the USA paying witnesses off then? No comment about how the bomb had CIA plastered all over it? No comment on the CIA drug smuggling either?



Brainwashed.

Well, given that Obama and parts of the US political establishment seem to have been going out of their way to weaken BP and the subsequent news that the weakened BP may become the target of a takeover bid by US Oil (Exxon), it would not surprise me is this was not just more cynical manoeuvring of US politicians who have an agenda of their own.

Whether we like the decision of the Scottish Justice Secretary or not (I personally think it was an affront), trying to suggest BP had involvement in high politics regarding the mass murderer Megrahi was denied at the time and remains highly speculative. The UK political lobbying system is somewhat less effectual than the US system and Ministers.

Regards

Not so much a BP issue (big corporate lobbying a Gov is not new) but more to the point a call for a Senate committee to investage the UK governments, since you can not untangle the two aspects.

From what I understand the UK Gov has already answered those questions, so to press for an investigation must be seen in some diplomatic quarters that the US Gov beleives the UK Gov are liars and untrustworthy.

And what could a senate committe do? denounce the UK as a supporter of terrorism? place sanctions against the UK?

IMHO a pretty big hot potato.. it'll be interesting how the US manages this situation..

My personal opinion is that I wanted to see the appeal process through and what (if any) new evidence would be put forward to support his claims of innocence, at least he could have put up or shut up, but now we will never know.

[edit on 14/7/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply to post by Goathief


With the greatest respect Megrahi was convicted in a Scottish Court where evidence and witnesses were properly scrutinised. He was going through legal process and just about to start a second appeal. There was certainly a core of people who believed that Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and (of course) Courts do make errors, but in this case process was being duly followed and I think he would have lost his second appeal.

I believe that the UK and Scottish judicial system is both independent and robust and that on the evidence provided the judges at the original trial got it right. That decision was upheld in the first appeal and (as we know) he was released on compassionate grounds just before his second appeal commenced.

The problem is that the mass murderer has not died as the experts said he would. His early release was based on his imminent death. They just should not have released him and we would be in the second appeal which he would have lost OR new evidence presented leading to his legitimate release.

If you have evidence that the US bribed witnesses and that the CIA bombed the plane then I would love to see it. Blaming the CIA, FBI, MI5, Aliens and Israel for all crimes in the last few decades is a bit tedious when the evidence is never forthcoming and the only “proof” is farted out by YouTube video endlessly recasting the same old crap as fact.

Regards

Originally posted by Goathief
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

So no comment about the USA paying witnesses off then? No comment about how the bomb had CIA plastered all over it? No comment on the CIA drug smuggling either?

Brainwashed.

Not brainswashed like you though and this lockerbie muderer.

I wouldn't go hurting myself or others just based on ideaology or if someone told me. Make a decision for yourself and don't let others rule your thinking.

Like the poster above who put it so eloquently. Please link to the proof you say exists and the matter can finally be put to rest regarding the lockerbie case.

You obviously have such strong evidence against the CIA, please send it to the owners of this site and clear any innocents name. If not, you are nothing but a hot airhead.







[edit on 14-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

reply to post by paraphi


Who the hell thinks aliens had anything to do with the bombing? What a shameful and completely transparent attempt to belittle people who don't adhere to the official story, mentioning aliens along with intelligence services regarding the conspiracy angle of this case... I think he did have a small part to play whether knowingly or unknowingly, but was used a scapegoat...So im pretty happy he got out and hasn't died yet.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Solomons]

Briefly in no particular order as I'm short on time;

Bribing of witnesses. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Former Police Chief claims CIA planted key evidence. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gaddafi's son says they lied about Lockerbie. www.abovetopsecret.com...

BBC, "Doubts over evidence". news.bbc.co.uk...

Extensive Wiki on Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories. en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see where aliens and the like come in to it at all. Nice failure at character assassination.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by Goathief]

reply to post by Goathief


I'm with you Goathief. The trial was a farce and evidence was witheld at best and fabricated at worst. A huge miscarriage of justice by my country and a shame to us all. Releasing Al-Megrahi was not on compassionate grounds. It was to stop the appeal, which was going to bring to light a lot of new interesting evidence. Yeah, he would've lost it. They would never admit they were wrong. But there was certain things that must be kept hidden from the public.

Jim Swire, who's daughter died in the disaster, has started a great site to get the truth out:

Lockerbie Truth

His comments on this hit the nail on the head:

The gentlemen concerned should be careful what they wish for. An investigation would reveal the multi-billion dollar deal between Tony Blair, top British Petroleum representatives and the Libyans for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement that would enable al-Megrahi's release. The end result was that al-Megrahi was persuaded to drop his second appeal. That appeal hearing would have heard new evidence about US offers of "unlimited money and $10,000 available immediately" to sole identification witness Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, in exchange for his cooperation in the conviction of the accused. It would also have heard testimony from internationally respected expert Dr John Wyatt that the Hayes fragment could not have survived the explosion that destroyed Pan Am 103.

Yeah, BP would have profited all they could from this. And Tony Blair would have been smiling over their shoulders as they signed on the dotted line.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Nammu]