On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:22:13 -0700, Michael Smith wrote: >Yes. Of course. The sum total of all the evidence that the authorities had >to go on I'm sure. > >But, another internet source (Wikepedia) says
You forget to mention that standard disclaimers apply, that is, Wikipedia is not a definitive source of information on a topic but only a starting point for a serious examination of sources of information on a topic, person, or event. >"On 31 January 2001, he was convicted, by a panel of Scottish Judges >sitting in a special court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, of 270 counts >of murder for his part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, >Scotland, on 21 December 1988." It is also customary to provide the link to the Wikipedia article that one cites to allow readers to independently verify what is quoted and/or paraphrased (this may still lead to a "Betsy McCaughey moment", that is, on a recent episode of the "Daily Show", Jon Stewart had Ms. McCaughey, a proponent of the "Death Panel" interpretation of the U.S. health reform legislation, who claimed that the bill actually required "death panels" even though the phrase appears NOWHERE in the bill -- when pressed by Stewart to provide the text in the bill that she claims provides death panels, Ms. McCaughey could not locate the page even though she confidently said the page number [Stewart suggest the use of Post-Its to mark relevant pages in the fat binder she was relying upon] and when she finally found the page it was clear that she was providing a very tortured reading of the text; one can watch the show on the Daily Show website http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--1 and here is one printed source on the episode -- news.google.com provides more: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/daily-show-exegesis-of-house-health-bill/ ) I presume that your leaving off a link/reference is an oversight (but how many points would you have taken off if a student had done this in an APA style paper in a course?) but it does leave the interested reader in a bind if they want to follow-up on what you say (I presume that the intellectually curious members of the list routinely follow-up by examining the sources cited in a post because this is one aspect of being a serious scholar). For example, I wanted to examine your source but was left to find it myself. I don't know if I came across the same entry as you on Wikipedia but here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi A couple of key points in the Wikipedia entry that Michael Smith does not mention (if indeed it is the one used) are: (1) Megrahi would become eligible for parole. Quoting from the Wikipedia entry: |Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation |that he should serve at least 20 years before being eligible for parole. So, life imprisonment does not mean that one will be in prison for the rest of one's life if one meets the conditions for parole. In an appeal hearing, the judges extended the parole date to 27 years but back-dated it's start to 1999. (2) There is some question about whether Megrahi received a fair trial. Again, quoting from the entry: |Second appeal | |On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC concluded its four-year review and, |having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have |occurred, the Commission granted Megrahi leave to appeal against |his Lockerbie bombing conviction for a second time.[20] The second |appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was abandoned in August 2009, |as an impediment to the legal power to release him to Libya under the |Prisoner Transfer Scheme then operating in the United Kingdom. |Ultimately, he was not released under this scheme, rather, on compassionate |grounds due to his ill health. There was in the event, no requirement to |drop his appeal against conviction. | |New information casting fresh doubts about Megrahi's conviction was |examined at a procedural hearing at the Judicial Appeal Court (Court of |Session building) in Edinburgh on 11 October 2007: | |(1) His lawyers claimed that vital documents, which emanated from the |Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and related to the Mebo timer that |allegedly detonated the Lockerbie bomb, were withheld from the trial |defence team.[21] | |(2) Tony Gauci, chief prosecution witness at the trial, was alleged to have |been paid $2 million for testifying against Megrahi.[22] | |(3) Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered |him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the |crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya.[23] | |(4) Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore an affidavit in July 2007 |that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to |"a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case".[24] | |On 1 November 2007 Megrahi invited Professor Robert Black QC to visit |him at Her Majesty's Prison, Greenock. After a 2-hour meeting, Black stated |"that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an |innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction."[25] There is additional material on this point in other sections of the entry including the section labeled "Call for Megrahi's release": |On 14 August 2009, Megrahi withdrew his appeal. South of Scotland |SNP MSP Christine Grahame said, "There are a number of vested |interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as |they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth |behind Lockerbie.... In the next days, weeks and months new information |will be placed in the public domain that will make it clear that Mr Megrahi |had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103."[40] Tam Dalyell, |the former Labour MP for West Lothian has long believed Megrahi is |the victim of a catastrophic miscarriage of justice, and has publicly stated |that Megrahi is merely a scapegoat.[41] There are various websites that examine the Megrahi's case from a legal perspective, one of them is the blog "Scotish Law Reporter": http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/ and http://i-p-o.org/nr-lockerbie-14Oct05.htm . I assume that Tipsters in the UK might be able to give an opinion about how credible this and similar sources are. Perhaps it's a good time to remember that even experimental research only provides tentative knowledge subject to support through replication. All other knowledge is frequently of even less quality. [Michael Smith concluded] >It's so unfortunate that it's the common people who again have to >bear with the immorality of self-styled demi-gods. I really don't understand your attitude or what appears to be your viserial reaction to MacAskill's decision. In what you say I do not hear anything that can be interpreted as concerns for the families of the victims of the Lockerbie/Pan Am bombing, rather it seems as though you are ranting against the abuse of power by politicians but why MacAskill? To me, your tone is reminiscent of U.S. survivalists who stay up at night with their automatic weapons waiting for the black helicoptors to come. Indeed, the U.S. government provides more than enough examples on a daily basis about the type of abuse of power you seem to be agitated about with MacAskill; for example see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702214.html Or is it the case that MacAskill is a "safer" target, that he is unlikely to have you "renditioned", brought to a "black site prison", and threaten you with having your children killed while suggesting to perform selective brain ablations with a power drill? -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
