Talk:Abdelbaset al-Megrahi/Archive 2

Bias?
It seems a little weighted towards Al-Megrahi being wrongly convicted, just does not read neutral to me. I've subsequently tagged the article, to see if anyone could take a look and see if they can do anything about it. Cheers. Sky83 (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the article:

"...the SCCRC concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred..."

So, giving some considerable weight to doubts about his guilt would be justified. Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is true, but it stands that he is a convicted mass murderer who took the lives of hundreds of people. To have the majority of the article weighted towards his alleged innocence/appeals etc seems disproportionately biased in his favour. While I know that there is obviously a distinct article on the bombing, it doesn't quite seem appropriate that the article about the guilty party is leaning heavily towards innocence. In light of the dropping of the appeal, it seems somewhat unlikely that he will be exhonerated, so it's not even as if Megrahi's status, in a legal sense, will alter (in terms of innocent vs guilty, rather than incarcerated vs free). I'm not sure what to do to alter the article, which is why I tagged it, to see if anyone else had any ideas. I accept entirely what you're saying, and I even agree, I just, like I said, find that focus disproportionate. Sky83 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This legal speak is very cautious. "A miscarriage of justice could have occurred" means in reality that it is practically certain that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. So, he is convicted, yes, but a mass murderer, no, the guilty party, no, most likely not. Concerning the future, nobody knows, but there remains a strong pressure to reopen the case.213.84.53.62 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the legal status is that "A miscarriage of justice could have occurred" does not, by any stretch, mean that the occurrence of such a miscarriage is "practically certain." If you have evidence to that effect, I would be happy to see it.  It only means that there is sufficient reason to justify the time and expense of further investigation.  We should also be wary of political pressures on the relevant actors in this case, coming from both directions, and to me this diminishes the weight of several quotations in favor of al-Megrahi; there was significant pressure on law enforcement agencies to put someone away for the Lockerbie bombing, and just as surely there was just as much pressure on Libya and its friends to exonerate him, due to the sanctions and damage to international reputation and etc.  This is why I think less weight should be given to quotations and more weight to the hard evidence.


 * Perhaps the article would read a little less biased if it actually included some of the relevant points from the original case against him? It doesn't really tell a reader why he was convicted in the first place.-12.70.92.162 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. First, the weight of the evidence in favor of a conviction should be given.  The page says nothing about what he is accused of doing and why the judges reached the conclusion they did.  Second, even though reasons have been given to doubt the conviction, responses to those reasons should also be given.  Presumably those who remain convinced of al-Megrahi's guilt, especially those who were involved in the initial trial, have offered responses to the allegations of a miscarriage of justice.  Al-Megrahi was convicted; this much is fact.  Voices should be heard that believe the conviction was wrong, and voices should be heard that believe it was right.  It is partly the absence of this secondary response that gives the article a prejudiced feel to me.


 * Having read the entire article, I must agree with Sky83 and 12.70.92.162. How many times is the phrase "miscarriage of justice" used here? There is actually very little information provided to show a miscarriage of justice took place (One of Hans Koechler's reason for doubting the validity of the conviction: "A retired Scottish police officer has signed a statement confirming that the evidence that found Al-Megrahi guilty was fabricated. The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, testified “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005)." . Also, there is virtually no information about the people who testified against Megrahi at the trial in this article. After reading Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, it seems that there were several people who tied Megrahi with the alleged IED that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103, none of whom are mentioned in this article. I must agree that the article appears slanted to make Megrahi appear innocent, as 213.84.53.62 seems to think based on nothing more than an anonymous opinion, despite his conviction by 5 judges who actually heard the evidence against him, much of which seems to have been classified by the CIA. Obviously, if you think the CIA is behind the bombing in the first place, you might doubt the evidence they are giving to the judges, but this article should let people make up their own minds. Instead it hides the ball. I suggest adding relevant information surrounding the trial.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What did he actually do?
This article contains absolutely no information about what his role actually was in the bombing. Did he put the bomb on the plane? Did he make the bomb? Did he fund it? What? Surely this is one of the most important things and it would be nice to know.86.22.78.112 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do? Most likely he is completely innocent. But here is what he was convicted of doing.

The charge narrated that the appellant, having formed a criminal purpose to destroy a civil passenger aircraft and murder the occupants in furtherance of the purposes of Libyan Intelligence Services, while acting in concert with others, did certain acts. These included the purchasing on 7 December 1988 of a quantity of clothing and an umbrella in shop premises known as Mary’s House at Tower Road, Sliema, Malta; entering Malta on 20 December 1988 at Luqa airport while using a passport with the false name of Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad; residing overnight at the Holiday Inn, Tigne Street, Sliema, using this false identity; and placing or causing to be placed on board an aircraft of Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt am Main Airport on 21 December 1988 a suitcase containing said clothing and umbrella and an improvised explosive device containing high performance plastic explosive concealed within a Toshiba RT SF 16 radio cassette recorder and programmed to be detonated by an electronic timer, having tagged the suitcase or caused it to be tagged so as to be carried by aircraft from Frankfurt am Main Airport via London Heathrow airport to New York. The charge went on to state that the suitcase was thus carried to Frankfurt am Main Airport and there placed on board an aircraft of PanAm flight PA103 and carried to London Heathrow airport and there in turn placed on board an aircraft of PanAm flight PA103 to New York; and that the improvised explosive device detonated and exploded on board the aircraft while in flight near to Lockerbie, whereby the aircraft was destroyed and the wreckage crashed to the ground and the passengers, crew and residents were killed. The appellant’s co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted of that charge. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph should be added to the Convicted section of this article. Claiming he is is most likely innocent, without presenting any evidence to that effect, nor saying who you think did do it, does no good for anyone. What are you claiming Megrahi actually did do, and can you present some evidence to back up your claim, which is contrary to what the court proceedings proved? Crime researcher (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Should be added" - you are welcome, this is Wikipedia.
 * Concerning evidence for guilt - there is practically none. Concerning evidence for innocence, there is a lot of indirect evidence, enough to convince many people, including me. One of the main witnesses has now declared under oath that the evidence he gave was fabricated. But you should honour your name and do your own research.
 * Concerning what the court proceedings proved: it proved that with US and Libyan officials present and directing the Scottish judges, any desired outcome could be arranged. There are many newspaper articles to read, and there is the report of the UN observerhttp://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm that you might wish to look at.
 * Don't forget the context: there had been a long and severe economic boycott of Libya, and Libya, US, UK arranged that Libya would produce two people, that Libya would pay damages, and then the boycott would be ended. This context explains why the defense at the trial withdrew. It was not part of the agreement that the defendant should be found Not Guilty. See alsoPan_Am_Flight_103.
 * 213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying "most likely he is completely innocent" and there is "practically" no evidence for guilt only further reinforces, for me, the impression of bias. Were you, 213.84.53.62, one of the authors of the article?  I am guessing so.  Historical/biographical pieces like this should simply set forth the story, with the facts and allegations that favor both sides.  Unfortunately, at present, this reads like an effort to exonerate al-Megrahi, using the veneer of objectivity that Wikipedia provides.  You seem to assume that those who speak in favor of innocence are all telling the truth while those who speak in favor of guilt (for instance, the Scottish judges) do so only because of political pressure.  Is the world really that black and white?  Also, there are two further points I think should be made.  First, there is a difference (as one of the quotations states) between innocence and an improper conviction.  To say that he was wrongfully convicted, or even that there was a miscarriage of justice, is not necessarily to say that he is innocent, but that proper procedures were not followed.  It's entirely possible that there was improper prosecutorial conduct, for instance, and yet al-Megrahi indeed was guilty, or was involved in the bombing in a different way.  My only point is that we should not leap from "law enforcement misconduct" (if there was any) to "completely innocent" without an awful lot of evidence to cross that gap.  Second, when it comes to al-Megrahi's recent release, his guilt or innocence is immaterial.  One response to the release is to say, "He may not have been guilty anyway."  Yet a person convicted of mass murder is presumed guilty until proven innocent.  It is almost always possible for interested parties, after the case, to raise questions about the conviction.  It's also possible, in the court of public opinion, to put forth little nuggets of 'evidence' that would fall apart if they were examined by an investigator.  So, absent a hearing where the evidence is fully laid forth, or absent some truly dispositive piece of evidence coming out (showing that he was not in Malta, for instance), I think it's most reasonable to continue to give the ruling of the seven judges greater weight than it is given here.

If there was such an agreement between the US, UK and Libya, why did the whole thing take years, and why present two defendants, yet acquit one of them? An intergovernmental conspiracy to fix things would have been much quicker and more clean-cut. Can any of the people who claim Megrahi is innocent, suggest which people they believe were involved in bombing the plane? Crime researcher (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of IRAN or to be more specific, Iran Air flight 655 ? I think you call it payback!--Cyber Fox (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Iran had motive, but so did Libya (as did a few other countries). The problem with the Iran theory is lack of evidence.Crime researcher (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This applies throughout the investigation, there was little evidence of anything. Megrahi's conviction was based on such controversial evidence and the longer the SCCRC looked at it the more evidence of conspiracy and tampering they found. It is a pity that this will not be revealed in court but then again, it may be yet.--Cyber Fox (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the conviction based on the testimony of the tailor who sold him the clothes, based on his IDing a piece of charred cloth from the wreckage? I've never understood though, whether the tailor saw the cloth among the wreckage on TV and dialed it in, or whether Scotland Yard interviewed every tailor in the world to see if they could ID any bit of cloth found? Info about what rare blend or pattern of fabric this was isn't explained either. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The latter actually..LOL You must remember that the tailor saw Megrahi on TV before he identified him. And also remember the $2million dollars the Yanks paid to the tailor to help him remember which btw was never revealed to the trial judges!--Cyber Fox (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not assume the truth of the claim that he was paid $2M for his testimony. Perhaps there is solid evidence to this effect, but I have not yet seen it.  The tailor could have been pressured to say this.  I'm not saying the tailor is lying.  I don't know.  But that's the point--neither do you.  I fear that some have come to this case with a predetermined notion of who the good and (especially) the bad guys are.


 * The £2 million bribe paid to the witness by the CIA has been confirmed by the press since 2007. SeeLockerbie witness 'given £2m reward'in the Scotland on Sunday for example. It was part of the evidence the SCCRC judged to be "unsafe". Josh Keen(talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my. Well, there should be something in the article about the case against him. Simply saying nothing because it is ridiculous is POV by way of omission; I can't think of any other bio article about a notable criminal where his whole link to the crime and the case against him isn't at all explained. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted a into the Background para so that readers can see where to find the charges, evidence and conviction in detail. --Red King (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did the Libyan gov't pay over a billion dollars compensation to relatives of Lockerbie victims? And at the same time deny complicity? This fact should be put in the article, whatever you make of it.

It is anyway a solid fact, unlike a supposed CIA bribe to one of the witnesses. But if that is true, what motive would there be? Doing the mullahs a favor does not seem a likely thing. 84.69.173.228 (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More neutral paragraph
I rewrote the paragraph regarding his reception upon his return - "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain as a dying man — and landed in Libya amongst national praise.

A crowd of thousands gathered at Tripoli airport to welcome Megrahi as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet. He was accompanied by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi. Last year, Gadhafi had pledged to bring al-Megrahi home. Within minutes Megrahi was whisked away for a meeting with his elderly mother. "

The previous version being:

The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain as a dying man deserving of compassion — and landed in Libya a national hero.[59]

A crowd of thousands, many waving Scottish flags and others throwing flower petals gathered at Tripoli airport to welcome Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet to the strains of patriotic music. He was accompanied by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was dressed in a traditional white robe and golden embroidered vest. Last year, the son had pledged to bring al-Megrahi home and raised his hand victoriously to the crowd as they exited the plane. Within minutes Megrahi was whisked away for a meeting with his elderly mother.

Sound good to everyone? Falcon8765 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Certaily not, a watered down US PC version no doubt.--Carriden (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell me if I am wrong but I understood Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of facts, not fiction?--Carriden (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not the 'watered down US PC version', it's the WP:NPOV version. It includes all of the relevant facts without unencyclopedic imagery that will do nothing but inflame opinions about the subject. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire section is completely unnecessary. This is an article about the man's entire biography -- we don't need the chronology of the day he was released.  From WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Leo (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I figured it would be a big edit war to try and remove it all together. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh but we do. The day of his release is one of the most significant days of his life and to try to demean this editorial is an insult or maybe just your own NPOV. The facts, which by the way all have citations, are what the reader wants to know, not your watered down version.--Carriden (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have a section devoted to his release and the subsequent reactions; this section could easily be merged with that in far more precise and encyclopedic fashion. *Edited: just realized I confused two names. My mistake, though I stand by the fact that this is completely unweighted and WP:NOTNEWS. Leo (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be added back in as in some ways wikipedia is news. It even has a current events portal Portal:Current events/2009 August 20. The reaction in his release and arrival in Tripoli is important to the overall article as it bespeaks the controversy around his conviction, the role Libya played in the bombing, and how it is received in the nation he calls his home. The release is an important aspect of why he is notable in the first place. Plus it is well sourced. Peace rkmlai(talk) 05:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain and landed in Libya to national acclaim.
 * A crowd of thousands, many waving Scottish flags and others throwing flower petals gathered at Tripoli airport to welcome Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet to the strains of patriotic music. He was accompanied by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was dressed in a traditional white robe and golden embroidered vest. Last year, the son had pledged to bring al-Megrahi home and raised his hand victoriously to the crowd as they exited the plane. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmlai (talk • contribs)
 * I don't disagree with anything you said. However, besides the first sentence, I see nothing in that quote of any encyclopedic value.  It simply describes the situation when he arrived in Libya, which would be perfectly apt in a news article or on Wikinews, but I think that first sentence "bespeaks" to everything you mentioned just as dutifully.  Therefore, I see no reason why the first sentence shouldn't be included in the Release section as opposed to having its own. Leo(talk) 07:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The original section read like some nationalistic press release with a semi-gloating tone. It sounded to me as if it was either the latter or intended to incite some moral outrage against the Libyan government or something. To clarify, I have no personal opinion on the overall nature of this individual's detention; I hadn't even heard of him until I came across this article while huggling yesterday. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about: "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain and landed in Libya to national acclaim to a crowd of thousands, many waving Scottish flags, as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet "rkmlai (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, if included in the Release section:
 * Some of that seems still seems a little unnecessary to include (like the clause with the strikethrough ), but I'm not complaining. I might also include the fact that this "hero's welcome" was in direct defiance of Obama, though at the moment I'm too sleepy.  Good night! Leo (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming Megrahi is deserving of compassion is certainly not neutral. It is a contradiction that a convicted mass murderer could apply for compassionate release, when he clearly never cared about compassion. The SNP consider him worthy of compassionate release, but that does not mean he does deserve it. Most of the people in the UK do not support his release. Crime researcher (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that most of the original section was a copyright violation or at least plagiarized from its sources. Amalthea  11:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed another copyright violation from the "Arrival ..." section. If people find it important and want to include the information in a way that doesn't violate copyright (WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAGIARISM) they are of course welcome to do so. The quote which was copied verbatim, but not marked as a quote, was: "One of those who assisted him, clutching his right arm, was a middle-aged man dressed in white with a brown waistcoat and waving a Libyan flag in celebration. He bore more than passing resemblance to Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the 53-year-old man who, eight years ago had stood alongside Megrahi during their eight-month trial at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands.", fromnews.scotsman.com. Amalthea  12:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Wording of Tripoli arrival section
Could I get an outside opinion on the wording of the Arrival in Tripoli section? A proposed rewrite is in the previous talk page section.

Reactions
It seems to me that there is too much fucos on the negative reactions to his release. There have been many people who were supporting the release, including relatives of the victims of the crash. This should be given more coverage82.46.49.45 (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I must agree but we all know why that is. My original contribution may need tweaking but in essence it is de script and to the point. This is of historical and encyclopaedic value at its best to the uninformed reader. This reader wants facts about Megrahi and his homecoming is integral to that. He didn't get a scheduled flight and the bus home, he had a huge jet airliner put at his disposal by the head of a Sovereign African State and had a hero's welcome on his arrival. Like it or not, that is what occurred and that is what should be incorporated in the article about Megrahi. --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Most Libyans support his release; most Britons and Americans do not. A small minority of family members of those killed at Lockerbie support his release, due to their belief in his innocence; they are outnumbered multiple times by those family members who believe him guilty and are horrified at his freedom. If the statistics about this can be found, they should be added. Reaction from other countries should be mentioned in the article: people from 21 countries were killed that day, so it is relevant to those countries. Megrahi's release is on the main page of German Wikipedia, which does not even have a Megrahi article. Crime researcher (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Crime researcher but you need to do some more research! Most British and Irish people know only too well what certain States around the world are capable of when the going gets tuff! They also know that poor old Megrahi was stitched up not only by the West but by his own people. He and his co accused only attended the trial in order to clear his tarnished name and reputation...it didn't work out that way as he was dumped on from a very great height (sorry about the pun!). The majority of right thinking people in the British Isles do support his release and for the very same reasons explained by Kenny MacAskill yesterday...its called compassion and we do it in this neck of the woods. We don't jab needles into people or apply 40,000 volts to them as some uncivilised States do. The bereaved in the US are for the most part brain-washed by the US establishment against anything Libyan. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If a substantial proportion of people in the UK support his release, someone needs to produce evidence to that effect; everything I've seen says only a small minority wanted him released. He has only been released because he is terminal, not because of anything else. His release does not show that MacAskill or any of the authorities in the UK believe him innocent. If he didn't have cancer, he would still be in prison. The SNP did not have to release him, it wasn't due to new evidence casting doubt on his conviction. They chose to release him, knowing he'd get a hero's welcome in Libya. It is a decision that has more opponents than supporters, and has damaged Scotland's reputation, especially in regard to relations with the US. 'Soft on terror' is not a label that Scotland or the UK as a whole want. Crime researcher (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see where this is going. The Scottish Government made the right decision, they made it in full knowledge that the majority of civilised people in Scotland support them in this. They also know that he is innocent. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Without a reliable source to support either side, this is pointless. Unless anyone can provide one, there is no need to continue this thread. Amalthea  11:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The sneeringly fatuous talking point that "its [sic] called compassion and we do it in this neck of the woods" does not require composition of a response, because Senator Kerry an the Los Angeles Times have so utterly demolished it already. This cold-bloodedly inhuman decision pulls the concept if "compassion" inside out. The "blinkered interpretation of 'compassion' took no account of the enormity of Megrahi's crime or his refusal to acknowledge his guilt," and Mr. Eleven Days MacAskill showed "no compassion for relatives of the 270 people killed when the jet exploded over Lockerbie." By MacAskill's standards, Myra Hindley was gypped: if 11.5 days for each victim is the going rate, she should have been out in three weeks. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Crime researcher wants to know what the majority of a population thinks. Seems difficult to ascertain, and also a bit irrelevant. People tend to form opinions based on what they read in the newspapers. Of much greater significance is the conclusion of the SCCRC, who spent years studying the case, that "a miscarriage of justice could have occurred". But it is not difficult to find many official European sources doubting the correctness of this conviction. Even the German Government has voiced doubts. Randomly picking a few on-line polls with not too few respondents: Is release ok? www.scotsman.com 47% yes, 53% no, www.irishtimes.com 43% yes, 57% no - contrast with the US www.foxnews.com 4% yes, 95% no.

Since you mention German Wikipedia: "Einige Beobachter glauben, dass das Akzeptieren der Verantwortung eher ein Geschäftsabschluss war, mit dem Ziel der Aufhebung der Sanktionen, und nicht das Eingestehen von Schuld. Im Februar 2004 sagte der libysche Premierminister Schukri Ghanim der BBC, dass die Entschädigungen als „Preis für Frieden“ und als Schritt zur Aufhebung der Sanktionen gezahlt wurden." (Some observers believe that accepting responsability [by Libya] was more an agreement in order to end the sanctions than an admission of guilt ...) Read, if you read German, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerbie-Anschlag - it contains some good information.

"Among law enforcement and legal experts who've looked closely at the Lockerbie case, there's an array of skeptics who question that the Libyans are the real culprits, or the most important ones. Those skeptics include several of the United Kingdom's top legal experts, and the Maltese and German governments."http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/lockerbie/story/printable_story.html This link also discusses the opinion of the CIA man who handled the case at that time. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A very good post 213.84.53.62 if I may say so, why not register and come out from behind your IP ? --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Users are encouraged to get usernames, but are in no way required to have them to contribute. Falcon8765(talk) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The former Roman Catholic priest in Lockerbie whose own home was damaged by wreckage from the crash has written in support of the compassionate release of Megrahi in an article in theHerald. Liddle18 (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)