2012 Election Primer: Obama and Romney

Obama and Romney (Politico)

So after a bunch of requests (read: 3) to write up an election primer, I decided that it is time to give the people what they want: to know what a random 20-something in New York who thinks he knows more than he does feels is the best candidate to cast your ballot for in November.

I began this election season promising myself that I would vote for neither candidate and instead write someone in. President Obama, in my opinion (and I can't explain to you the amount of flak I've received for this) has been an underwhelming president when compared to the candidate he was in 2008. And that last sentence fragment is important: when compared to the candidate he was in 2008. All in all, Obama's done some good things domestically (repealing DADT, his better-late-than-never support of marriage equality, healthcare reform).

That's only one side of the coin, however. I've chronicled my disappointment with President Obama numerous times on this blog (here, here, and here to begin with). One thing that you'll notice about those articles (and most of my gripes about Obama) is that his foreign policy is, in a word, horrible. It is unfathomable to me that those who derided Bush's war mongering will defend Obama for 2012.

Obama is leading this country in the wrong direction, but not in the way that Fox News would have you believe. Precedents are being set in the Obama White House that could have dire consequences down the road.

For one, take the drone program (a program that is technically entirely classified). We have drones flying over many countries - countries with whom we are at war and countries with whom we are not at war. This sets a serious precedent for other countries who may want to fly drones over the United States when they get the same technology we currently have.

Moving beyond the precedent it sets, however, is the diplomatic damage that drone strikes carry given their civilian casualties. We conduct drone operations in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; countries we are not at war with. This comes back to the precedent setting: can you imagine if Islamabad began flying drones, making strikes and killing American civilians?

A drone equipped with weapons and a camera (Wired)

But it's not only about the drones. It's about extralegal killings of American citizens in non-war zones. It's about a dubiously legal "kill list," despite a longstanding executive order against such assassinations. It's about not closing what will certainly be viewed as a black-eye on this nation in the form of Guantanamo.

Going back to precedents, Obama seems to be making the same, if not similar, mistakes his predecessors made in Afghanistan. During the Libya non-war, I decried the support for the untrained rebels fighting Colonel Qaddafi. Throwing supplies and intel at a group not ready for it is not good foreign policy. In fact, when I heard that the attack on the late Ambassador Chris Stevens was coordinated I wondered if any of the attackers were former Libyan rebels who had received training or materiel from the U.S. or other NATO nations. We've seen similar problems with green on blue attacks in Afghanistan in which US-trained Afghan forces attack US soldiers.

It is for these reasons that I simply felt that I could not vote for Barack Obama come November. That view is beginning to change, however, and it has nothing to do with anything Obama is doing.

I knew I was not going to vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it was. The post-Reagan conservative is simply too beholden to the religious right (cue the famous Barry Goldwater quote). You look at candidates like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry and you shake your head wondering what has happened to the Republican Party.

Now, Mitt Romney would appear to be the most palatable of the Republican candidates. Having lived in Massachusetts while he was governor and seeing the good things he did during that time (near-universal healthcare, turning around a large deficit), I have been amazed to see Romney backtrack from his accomplishments. In 2008 I asked a good friend his opinion of Romney and he replied that he was spineless and would say anything to get elected. His prescient statement has more than proven true.

We could get into the issues with Romney, but one problem is I simply don't know where he stands on anything. It changes so frequently that it makes Obama's flip-flop on gay marriage look like, well, evolution. Romney simply cannot choose one side of a position and keep it.

One thing I like in a president is transparency (this is another arena in which I've been disappointed with the Obama administration). Needless to say, the fact that Romney refuses to release his tax returns (a tradition started by his own father, to boot) does not sit well. The fact that he and his campaign allowed it to become a months-long campaign issue indicates to me that whatever he wanted to hide in the returns was worth hiding.

I was never going to cast my vote for Romney; that was decided well before he won the Republican nomination. But what Romney has done through his ridiculous missteps - the Egypt and Libya embassy attacks statement, the utter lack of specifics in any of his policy, the 47% irrationale - has made me so angry that I might actually vote for Obama out of spite for Romney. Romney's seeming ineptitude has moved me in such a way that I might actually vote for a president who I think is setting this country up for a very difficult foreign policy environment in the near and long-term future.

So to sum it up: I do not want to vote for Obama, but if voting for neither candidate would give Romney any kind of advantage (no matter how small) it actually may be irresponsible of me, given my worldview, to not vote Obama in November. I felt that the 2008 election was the first one in a while that gave the American people a chance to actually vote for a quality candidate, as opposed to the lesser of the two evils. And I maintain that Obama was a good candidate; he just could not live up to that candidate as president. This election will definitely fall into the "lesser of two evils category." I'm just angry that Romney's horrendous campaign may actually force me to choose one.

Obama Speech on Libya: Close, but No Cigar

By Matt Kane

Last night President Obama addressed the nation about the "kinetic military action" in Libya. In his half hour speech he hit on a few points that should have been made more than a week ago in the lead-up to war in Libya. As I discussed in yesterday's podcast, Obama had his work cut out for him thanks to the horrendous and confusing interview that Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates gave over the weekend on Meet the Press.

One thing that I really liked about the speech was that President Obama came right out and said that the United States led the mission in Libya. I was quite frustrated on Sunday when Clinton said that the United States would be joining the international community, as if the U.S. had not been leading the charge in Libya from the word "go."

One phrase kept popping up in the speech that went directly against what Defense Secretary Gates said on Sunday. Obama said that our "values and interests" are at stake in Libya. That simply is not true. Like Gates said on Sunday, Libya is not in America's vital interest. And talk of values will remain empty as long as Guantanamo is open and Bradley Manning continues to be mistreated. It is akin to Newt Gingrich talking about the sanctity of marriage.

Along the same lines, the whole "stain the conscious of the world" rhetoric is just as empty. If every humanitarian crisis necessitated Western intervention a lá Libya, we would see allied forces on nearly every continent. At the very least we would see a large Western force in places like the Sudans, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Belarus, to name a few. It simply is not realistic.

In all fairness, Obama did bring up other countries going through changes that have been met with violence by the ruling regimes. His answer to this? Libya happened at a very specific time with very specific interests (which, for the record, were not listed) and it differs greatly from other places like Yemen or Syria. Without specifics about what makes Libya different, we would have to take Obama's word that American/allied interests in Libya made it more pressing than other civilian tragedies in other Middle Eastern countries. At this point in his presidency, however, only a fool would take Obama at his word.

Finally, Obama hinted that American and allied involvement in Libya will last much longer than anticipated. Even if Qaddafi steps down, Obama said, Libya will need help and support to transition to a truly democratic nation responsive to its people. This open-ended commitment to democracy in Libya should make anyone who has followed the Iraq War very nervous. Obama praised what we have done in Iraq in terms of bringing them democracy, but in reality we still have about 47,000 troops there. He explicitly stated that regime change is not the goal in Libya, but he wants Qaddafi out. Pick a goal and stick to it, Mr. President. You cannot have it both ways.

Obama made a promise similar to the one he made during this year's State of the Union. He said, "Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States." *Offer not applicable in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, China or any other country not meeting an unspecified rubric of the United States Department of Defense and Department of State. Unless those seeking freedom feel buoyed by Secretary Clinton's mumblings about restraint and peaceful dialogue while Libyan rebels get first-class Tomahawk missiles and air support, I do not know how valued American friendship will truly be.

Questions or comments? Leave them in the comment section or email The Second Age: admin(at)thesecondageblog.com.

French Foreign Minister: Libya Ops Could Take "Days or Weeks"

By Matt Kane

I was reading the New York Times this morning for updates on the situation in Libya and yet again I was taken aback by what officials are saying (or not saying, really) about the coalition's plans in the North African country. While yesterday it was Robert Gates who was dominating the "What did he just say?" game, today it is Alain Juppe, the French Foreign Minister. He is quoted in the Times as saying

"The destruction of Qaddafi’s military capacity is a matter of days or weeks, certainly not months."

Days or weeks? Is that how the allies are operating? I pointed out yesterday that they were taking their time to meet in London to discuss the future of Libyan action, and it now seems clear why. When you ask someone for a timeline and they say, "Days of weeks," what they really mean is, "I have no idea."

Obviously Minister Juppe did not want people to think that the allies did not really know what was going on in terms of Libya, so he added that the military operations would not take months. This seems to be in contrast to what top advisor to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Henri Guaino, said Monday. He was quoted saying that allied intervention in Libya would last "a while yet." Sounds more than "days or weeks" to me.

I don't think anyone can contest this statement anymore: The allies rushed into this military action against Libya with complete disregard to plans beyond the initial strikes. Juppe also told the Times that "You can’t expect us to achieve our objective in just five days." I don't think anyone did, except for the people calling the shots.

Photo - French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe (Wikipedia)

Gates: Libya? It's "Complicated"

Speaking from Russia days after that Eurasian giant's Prime Minister called the Libyan operations a "crusade," United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates deflected criticism of allied disorganization saying it was "complicated," adding

"We haven't done something like this, kind of on the fly before. So it's not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it sorted out."

I don't really want to dwell on this because I've spoken a lot about Libya, but the fact that Gates' retort to the questions of what Jack Cafferty calls the "falling apart" of the allied coalition is "We're not really prepared for this, and it's really hard" is disconcerting. It sounds like something I would say in middle school about my math homework.

I'm no military commander, but to bomb targets in a country embroiled in a civil war "on the fly" might not be the best military strategy. Despite Obama's two promises of the United States not taking a leadership role, Gates today also offered to keep the United States leading the Libyan operations for the next week or so. From the New York Times:

But the United States military also indicated on Wednesday that it could sustain its role for some time in the Libya operation without damaging commitments elsewhere, notably in Afghanistan.

The allies who are standing behind the United States in the operations seem to be in no rush to overtake operations from America. From the same New York Times article:

The French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said on Wednesday that representatives from the United States, Europe, Africa and the Arab nations would meet next week in London to discuss who would be in charge of military operations once the initial onslaught on Libya’s air defense systems and recalcitrant ground forces was complete, The Associated Press said.

Next week? I would like to know what is preventing these countries from meeting before next week. It's clear that there was no plan beyond "Drop some bombs." This is the slowest "on the fly" coalition I've ever seen.

Photo - Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Wikipedia)

Obama Breaking Promises Regarding Libya

One of the most poignant—and very welcome—quote in President Obama's speech on Friday regarding the situation in Libya was,

It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it.

A rational individual reading this quote would assume that this would mean that the United States would be taking a backseat role in the military action in Libya. Welcome news to war-weary Americans who have lived the past ten years with Afghanistan and the past eight with Iraq. As trillions and trillions of dollars leave America for wars on the other side of the world—despite talk of government shutdowns and budget crises—the statement that the U.S. would not be leading these strikes was good news in a bleak financial environment.

Obama repeated this promise on Saturday in Brazil, saying,

As a part of this effort, the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.

 So you can imagine my surprise at this headline: "U.S. to hand over Libyan operation to France or UK." Even worse, here was the lead paragraph:

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates today said that his country expects to hand over the leadership of the military operations against Libyan regime to a coalition likely to be headed by either the French, the British or NATO "in a matter of days".

Wait, what? After two assurances from President Obama that the United States would not lead the military operations against Libya we are actually looking to hand over said leadership? And we do not even know to whom?

So I decided to do a quick Google search of "us-led libya." Multiple outlets are referring to the strikes in Libya as "U.S.-led." The Atlantic says that Operation Odyssey Dawn could cost the allies between $400 million and $800 million. The outlet also uses the language of "U.S.-led" operations.

Obama also threw out the phrase "international community" nine times in the two speeches, trying to link the U.S.-led actions as being backed by the world. Unfortunately, this is not the entire truth. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin went so far as to say that the operations reminded him "of a medieval call for a crusade." China tempered their negative response, saying that the actions violated international law and damaged the UN Charter. Both countries abstained from the UN vote authorizing military action in the North African country.

The Arab League, another group touted by Obama as being behind military action in Libya, has not been as supportive as the Obama administration has portrayed. The Secretary General of the League, Amr Moussa, called an emergency meeting to discuss the events. The New York Times characterized the Arab League's opinion of the air strikes as "extreme unhappiness."

Barack Obama talks a big game and has rarely backed it up when it comes to foreign policy. Guantanamo is still open, Bradley Manning is essentially being tortured while Obama's press secretary touts the administration's "transparency," and now the U.S. is leading military action in a country that is not a direct threat to the United States. To make matters worse, a French official has echoed the words of Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi, saying Monday that the operations in Libya could last "a while."

Obama's broken promises continue to pile up. The fact that he continually told the American people that the United States would not take a leading role in military action against Libya, while at the same time having the United States take the leading role in military action against Libya, shows just how empty his words have become. One promise that I hope Obama keeps is the one stating that American ground troops will not be deployed in Libya. Given his other promises regarding the country, however, I am not holding my breath.

Photo - Obama during his Libya remarks on Friday (Politico)

Could Libya Become Obama's Iraq?

Today, Barack Obama made a speech regarding the use of American military force in Libya to protect the civilians of the North African country, who have been subject to violent repression from Moammar Qaddafi and his loyalist forces. In it, the president promises some big-ticket items—namely the "protection of civilians in Libya." Listening to the speech I got some flashbacks to the lead-up to the Iraq War at the beginning of the millennium.

The parallels begin with the classic pre-war rhetoric of the "international community." In the case of Saddam, George W. Bush made the case that the Iraqi leader could not care less what the world thought of him and his actions, saying in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world."

Similarly, Obama today said about Moammar Qaddafi, "Ample warning was given that Qaddafi needed to stop his campaign of repression, or be held accountable.  The Arab League and the European Union joined us in calling for an end to violence. Once again, Qaddafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community."

Obama used another pre-war keyword: accountability. Today he said that, "Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable." This is not the first time "accountability" has been one of the reasons used to urge military force against a dictator. On March 16, 2003 Dick Cheney told Tim Russert that "Now, with all due respect to the French, if you look back at their track record, they have consistently opposed efforts to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his actions."

John Kerry used the accountability schtick back in 2004 when he was running for president, defending his vote to authorize use of force in Iraq on Meet the Press by telling Tim Russert, "I supported the notion that we must as a country hold Saddam Hussein accountable for what he was doing."

My question is this: why, all of a sudden, must we hold Qaddafi accountable? Why did we not hold him accountable following the Lockerbie bombing? Or when its perpetrator got a hero's welcome after being released by the British back in 2009? Are we really to believe that, up until the people of Libya tried to overthrow Qaddafi, the Western powers thought that he was a legitimate ruler incapable of these atrocities?

Additionally, the threat of military actions if UN resolutions are not met is nothing new. One of the main justifications for Iraq was Saddam Hussein's continual flouting of measures put upon his regime by the UN.  The key phrase here is "non-negotiable." Obama said, "Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable." The terms he is referring to regard humanitarian aspects of life—from the cessation of attacks on civilians to everyday items like electricity and water.

Rewind to October 2002, when then-President Bush said the following in Cincinnati in a speech about Iraq: "America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity."

Obama's speech itself also had inherent contradictions. Ezra Klein at the Washington Post made an excellent point when he tweeted, "If Libya collapses into chaos and tribal warfare, how do we protect civilians but not send in ground troops?" If our goal—which Obama made very clear—is to protect Libyan civilians and we cannot do that via air power, what will the administration do? Re-neg on its promise to the Libyan people, or re-neg on its promise to the American people?

Klein made another great point in yet another tweet, talking about Obama's statement, "And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya." One major issue that American foreign policy has faced in the past decade is a lack of definition of important terms like "victory." George W. Bush's assertion of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq simply underscores the point.

Beyond all of this, there is another issue that military action in Libya will create. With the precedent set of American military power entering North African/Middle Eastern countries that are not direct threats to American sovereignty, where will it end? Which countries will be "graced" with an American military presence and which will be left to their dictators' whims? Do the developments in Yemen and Bahrain warrant American military action? What makes Libya so special in our protection of its civilians?

While Obama may believe that American military action in Libya is good for the international community, it is important to remember that George W. Bush thought the same thing about invading Iraq. The justifications both have been highlighting—dangerous leaders shunning the international community, holding dictators accountable, non-negotiable human rights—are eerily similar. And before people say that Obama is very different from Bush, I would agree only when it comes to domestic matters. But when it comes to foreign policy—Guantanamo detainee treatment and Pakistani predator drones especially—to me they're quite similar. They share a Secretary of Defense, to boot.

I hope I am wrong, and there is plenty of things that can happen between now and a ground war in Libya. We are nowhere near the "point of no return." The justifications being used, however, for military action in Libya seem to mirror those used for military action in Iraq. Say what you want about Libya being different from Iraq; the problem is that I seem to have heard it all before.

Libyan Oil: Supply, Demand and Speculation

I'm no economist, so let us get that out there in the beginning of this article. I took an intro to econ in college and got a solid average B+, so anything I say here should be taken with a grain or two of salt. That being said, I feel that I am pretty in tune with what is going on in the world. Which is why I was very surprised that the New York Times would print an article entitled, "Tremors From Libya Threaten to Rattle the Oil World" in their "News Analysis" section and leave out the very word that sums up the entire "oil world" as we know it today: speculation.

They lay out the facts of reality today, but in very soft terms. They mention that Libya is a small oil producer and that Saudi Arabia has agreed to increase production to fill the "void" left by Libya. To be more precise, Libya produces only 2% of the world's oil and, to reiterate, Saudi Arabia is more than willing and able to make up all of that. In other words, in the world of supply and demand, nothing changes. In fact, this news has allowed oil prices to drop during Monday trading.

So why the big stink about Libya? The higher the price of oil, the higher the profits of oil companies like Exxon Mobile, whose profit rose 53% in the fourth quarter of 2010. Additionally, the more Wall Street whines about oil supplies (that in reality are unchanged) the more things become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Take this paragraph from the Times article:

The price of oil had been rising steadily even before the wave of pro-democracy protests swept much of the Middle East and North Africa. A recovering global economy had convinced traders that demand for oil was going to rise by about 2 percent in 2011. Some industry experts and Wall Street seers were predicting a gradual march back to $120 and even $150. The thinking was that investors would pour money into the commodity markets.

So Wall Street had predicted–even before the North African pro-democracy revolutions–that the demand for oil would rise, which would lead to a rise in oil prices. But the main driver of the rise in oil prices? People "pouring money into the commodity markets." In other words, speculation. So a rise in prices thanks to higher demand (assuming OPEC did not increase production to meet this demand) would be exacerbated by people betting on oil futures. A psuedo-supply problem simply acts as a catalyst for this, allowing Wall Street can meet their predictions while everyone else pays nearly $4.00 a gallon.

So, as far as "new analysis" goes, this is pretty soft. There are some serious statements that are clear in the article, the best of which is, "But the events unfolding in the Arab world, the epicenter of global oil production, are a sobering reminder that trading in oil, that mother of all commodities, is at heart a political game." But too much credence is given to Libya's position as an oil producer which is really negligible in all of this. The main focus here ought to be speculation, but it is not. It is what Wall Street thinks about oil prices and where they are headed. If Wall Street says oil prices will rise enough times, they will rise, regardless of supply and demand. There is your "analysis."

The flag that Libyan protesters have adopted (Al Jazeera)

Calls for Investigation into BP's Role in Al Megrahi Release Intensify

I figured BP might be in enough trouble as it is with the oil spill and the possibility of seepage from its Deepwater Horizon well, but they seem to continue to get free passes from the government, which is allowing the tests on the BP well to run for another 24 hours. The problem with this is that the pressure building up in the well's cap could cause problems in other parts of the massive well. One reason BP does not want the cap to be opened to collect oil is that it will give a much more accurate flow rate of oil that had entered the Gulf during the 3 month clusterfuck that ensued following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig. If the well is damaged in a way that lowers pressure on the cap (which may have happened over the weekend due to the "lower than expected" readings coming in on Monday) then that creates a slower flow rate out of the cap which would significantly lower the amount BP would officially be liable for.

Released Documents Show Reality of Al Megrahi Negotiations

Recently released documents concerning the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi show how the Libyan government was able to intimidate the United Kingdom into releasing the terrorist, who was later given a hero's welcome in his home country of Libya. Reading the documents it seems that the only reason that Libya wanted to sign a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with the UK in the first place was to get Al Megrahi out of prison.

From the outset of the discussions of the diplomatic relations with Libya (which began with a Memorandum of Understanding that stated that the UK and Libya would engage in ongoing negotiations, including a PTA) London made it clear that the final decision "to transfer any prisoner held in a Scottish Prison is a matter for the Scottish Ministers." But that does not mean that London was a bystander in negotiations.

In letters dated July 26, 2007 and September 23, 2007 Jack Straw (English Secretary of State for Justice) stated that the British government intended to pursue a clause in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement that precluded Al Megrahi and anyone else involved in the terrorist attack that killed 270 people. However, in a letter dated December 19, 2007 Straw backpedaled, saying "The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom I have agreed that in this instance the PTA should be in thestandard form and not mention any individual." When pressed by Edinburgh to clarify what "national interests" would leave the door open to release a convicted terrorists, Straw stated that a Libya that was reintegrated into the international community was good for the UK, plus Tripoli had voluntarily dismantled their WMDs (under sanctions) and might be able to "stem the flow of illegal migrants to the EU and to the UK." In reality, on December 23, 2007 (four days after Straw's reversal on precluding Lockerbie bombers from the PTA) Britain's largest company, BP, gained Libya's approval for a large oil contract in the Northern African country. How's that for national interests?

Beyond all of this, the United Kingdom had actually promised in a letter prior to the trial of Al Megrahi that if convicted, any Libyan national handed to the British for a trial would serve their time on British soil. "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom." Additionally, a UN Security Council Resolution was adopted that regarded the letter. This was not forgotten by London, as a letter from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) dated July 3, 2009 stated that Edinburgh had asked about the UK-US letter and the UN Resolution. Despite the plain language in the letter stating that either suspect would serve their time in the UK should they be convicted, the FCO stated that they did not "consider the either the joint UK-US letter, UN Security Council Resolution 1192 (1998) or the accompanying discussions between the UK Government and the United States Government regarding implementation of the trial initiative as set out in the joint letter, present an international law bar to such a transfer under the PTA where it is consistent with Scots law."

But as the British said, any transfer of a Scottish prisoner was up to the Scottish ministers. Except the Scottish ministers did not seem clear on the legality of allowing Al Megrahi a transfer to Libya. The Scottish government wanted access to documents from the negotiations that sent Al Megrahi from Libya to the Netherlands for trial in the late 1990s. The latest letter from those released on the subject state that the Scots never got the documents. On top of this, it is clear from their letters that Edinburgh did not want Al- Megrahi to be transferred to Libya under the PTA. In a letter dated October 25, 2008 they stated that they didn't even want Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi in the country. And the assurances of Jack Straw that Scottish officials would have final say in any prisoner transfer regarding anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing turned out to be hunches, not based on fact, according to a March 18, 2008 letter from Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland. Salmond's tone in that letter conveys that he is less than pleased, for obvious reasons.

So while the UK government kept saying that the PTA would not include Al Megrahi, it ended up including the convicted terrorist. While the UK said that legitimate governmental interests and allowing Libya back into the international community was the main goal of giving up certain exclusions in the PTA, in reality UK's largest company got a sweet oil deal four days after Jack Straw's reversal on the Al Megrahi exclusion clause in the PTA with Libya. When the UK told the Scots that their ministers would have the final say in any PTA request, they did not really mean it. It's clear that London had little to no intention of legitimately including the Scottish government in their dealings with Tripoli. Instead, the British were bullied into the release of the one man convicted in the worst terrorist attack in British history to Libya, where he was welcomed home like some kind of national hero, saying that they were sympathetic to Al Megrahi's being terminally ill. Al Megrahi made the decision to kill 270 people that day on orders from the Libyan government, so whether he died of cancer at a younger age than expected or lived to be three hundred years old, it should have been behind bars. Peace.

Photos - Al Megrahi (The Independent), One of the iconic images of the Lockerbie tragedy, which took the lives of 270 people (Daily Mail), Al Megrahi's hero's welcome back in Libya follow his transfer (The Guardian)