Longrider

Following on from the bleating about Al-Megrahi’s release, I see that the director of the FBI thinks that it is his place to lecture a foreign country about how to run its affairs.

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.

And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion.”

The decision, of course, was clearly explained. And, the facts of the original case were not the issue. Al-Megrahi fulfilled the criteria for compassionate release under the Scottish system. That is what MacAskill needed to consider. According to the Scottish government, that is what he did consider.

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

It is neither – it has repeatedly been explained that the prisoner fulfilled the relevant criteria. Nothing inexplicable about that. And, frankly, for Mueller to assume the arrogance to lecture another country about its justice system is pretty rich. When the USA ceases to indulge in its egregious plea bargaining arrangements and keeping convicted murderers for years – decades – on death row before finally ritually murdering them, then, and only then, may representatives of the US justice system step onto the high moral ground and presume to lecture others about justice. Until then, shutting the fuck up is the most appropriate action.

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion.”

Cockwaffle. Presuming that he is guilty – and there is doubt about that – he will die an a few weeks. During those last weeks, he will be semi-comatose, bedridden and in pain. Whether he endures that at home in Libya or in a Glasgow hospital ward under guard makes little practical difference. To suggest that this gives comfort in any way to terrorists is risible nonsense. And, frankly, as I stated earlier, it is compassion and mercy that sets us apart from the terrorist.

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

If you really, really think that allowing him home to die a painful death in a few weeks time is “reward” then you have a very odd idea of what a reward is. This is not justice you seek, it is revenge. And, of course, an innocent man would not admit to what he had not done and he would not reveal the names of others involved, because, surprise, being innocent, he wouldn’t know, would he?

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years – in some cases a full career – to see justice done.

But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988.

More utter cockwaffle. And if the wrong man was convicted, that is the mockery. If the right man was convicted, then allowing him home to die is the right thing to do. He has served eight years. Given that he is dying, eight years is all he is going to serve. And, frankly, the emotions of the victims should play no part in any justice system. The only thing that matters is the evidence and nothing but the evidence. When we allow emotive nonsense such as the above to creep into the justice system, justice is damaged.

You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution.

Irrelevant.

You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification – the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.

Irrelevant.

You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.

Irrelevant.

Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to “the need for compassion.”

Your opinion is irrelevant. This was a matter for the Scottish administration under Scottish law and fuck all to do with you and the US administration, athough you choose to ignore that fact that MacAskill did, indeed, consult widely before making his decision.

You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.

No, he has not. He applied the law as it should be applied.

You have given Megrahi a “jubilant welcome” in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

MacAskill did not give Megrahi a jubilant welcome, the Libyans did. As for justice – when you can differentiate between that and revenge, maybe your question would carry more weight.

The Scottish government’s response to this pile of utter tripe,

Compassionate release is not part of the US justice system but it is part of Scotland’s.

says it all, really.

I see that there is an international wankfest going on over scenes from Libya today.

I listened to Alistair Darling blathering on the BBC yesterday evening saying that all reasonable people would be disgusted by the reception given to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on his return to Libya. Really? I wasn’t. Frankly, it was precisely what any reasonably intelligent person would have expected. After all, as far as Libyans are concerned, al-Megrahi is an innocent man who took one for the team. And, frankly, like the Devil’s Kitchen, I am similarly inclined to that view.

Still, the cloud of a miscarriage of justice does not stem the angry voices who wanted the man to die in prison for an offence that, in all probability, he did not commit. This, though, is an irrelevance, they want someone – anyone – to pay for the loss of life twenty years ago. This is not justice, it is revenge and in all likelihood, misdirected revenge.

Then we have the Americans. Hillary Clinton when asked what she thought should happen should have dodged the question. What she should have said in response to questions on this issue was; this is a matter for the Scottish Justice Minister and not one for a US secretary of State. In short, it is none of the USA’s business. But, then, US foreign policy seems to revolve around telling other people how to run their countries (by force if necessary). Yes, I know, I know, Britain is just as guilty, but two wrongs don’t make a right, and American politicians placing pressure on their Scottish counterparts was nothing short of a disgrace.

Let’s presume though, for a moment, that there is no cloud of doubt about al-Megrahi’s conviction and that the court did, indeed, get it right and the eight years he has served were thoroughly deserved. Was the decision to release him sound? Well, to those ranting voices who wanted him to rot inside, to die without going home as the victims of Lockerbie died without going home, I would point out only this; compassion – extended even to one’s deadliest enemies – is what sets us apart from those who would destroy us.

Via the NO2ID blog, this comment by Matthew Parris.

But back to the Pyrenees, where I’ve just been talking to another English climber, a student aged 19.

“Seen this,” he asked, and pulled his driving licence from his pocket. “Spot anything wrong?”

I couldn’t. It looked like the real thing: one of those pinkish laminated cards, with photograph and details. The details included an age, of 21. “You can get them on the internet. A British cop or barman could spot the forgery — no hologram — but who’s going to know in West Virginia, where I’m off next month? You have to be 21 to get a drink there.”

“How much did you pay?”

“£20”.

And our Home Secretary seriously thinks that for £20,000, someone, somewhere isn’t going to learn how to forge an ID card?

People forge official documents, who’d a thunk it, eh? Well, our terminally naïve ministers seem to think that their gold plated (oh, sorry, gold standard) identity documents are somehow uniquely forge-proof and reliably secure. Despite all of the technology they quote as if it is some sort of magick, such as biometrics and RFID tags, they are repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong. Still, why indulge in inconsistency now?

Never mind the risk to our personal information, just so long as ministers are not seen to be weak and doing a U turn. Must get our priorities right, after all.

Google has been ordered to reveal the identity of a blogger who made disparaging remarks about Liskula Cohen (no, I haven’t a clue who she is either).

Liskula Cohen, a Vogue covergirl, has won a court ruling asking Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who called the former model a ‘skank’ .

Oh, right, a D list celeb, then. No one important.

Miss Cohen, 37, went to the Manhattan supreme court to discover who had attacked her so she could sue for defamation.

The Skanks in NYC blog featured photos of Miss Cohen and described her in a series of unflattering terms.

Under the pseudonym “Anonymous”, her critic wrote: “I would have to say that first place award for ‘Skankiest in NYC’ would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen.”

Miss Cohen, a former Australians Vogue covergirl, was a “40-something” who “may have been hot 10 years ago”, said the blogger.

That looks a lot like common abuse to me – which is not defamation, nor is it libellous. The court however, overruled the defence that this was merely opinion.

In what may prove a far-reaching ruling, Joan Madden, a New York supreme court judge, rejected the blogger’s claim that the blogs were a “modern day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting” and should not be treated as factual assertions.

Whereas, in fact, that is precisely what they are. Sure, blogs are bound by the same laws of libel as any other written medium and it behoves the authors to get their facts straight. But, and this is the rub, for the most part, they are opinion spiced with invective and ranting (rather a lot of the latter, I suspect). Therefore, calling Miss Cohen a “skank” (whatever that is) is nothing more than silly name-calling. It is hardly defamation and Miss Cohen has a wafer thin skin, it would appear. Just how damaging to Miss Cohen’s reputation is it, being called a skank by an anonymous blogger anyway?

The judge quoted a ruling by a Virginia court in a similar case that said that anonymous online taunters should be held accountable when their derision goes too far.

And where, precisely, is that line drawn and who is to draw it?

Steven Wagner, a lawyer for Miss Cohen, said he was “happy that the court recognises that the internet is not a place where people can freely defame people”.

Yes, but going by the evidence seen here, it isn’t defamation, it’s common abuse. It’s a bit like saying “your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries” and should be taken with as much gravitas, as no one in their right mind is going to take it seriously. Insulting someone is not grounds for legal action. What should have happened is that the judge should have kicked the case out while advising Miss Cohen to grow up. Instead, she gets the go-ahead to sue someone who, in all probability doesn’t have any money to speak of anyway.

Mr Wagner said the blogger would now be sued for defamation.

What a childish, spiteful and pathetic woman Liskula Cohen is. Not to mention the little matter of confirming the soon to be un-anonymous blogger’s stated opinion of her.

However, Anne Salisbury, a lawyer who represented the blogger in court, had accused Miss Cohen of bringing the case to attract publicity rather than restore her reputation.

She pointed out that the blog had attracted little notice and would have languished in obscurity if Miss Cohen had not sued.

This has a ring of truth about it. Would we be discussing it now if she had not taken this action? And, perhaps pointedly, I now know who Liskula Cohen is, whereas before, I had never heard of her. Although it may be worth pointing out that my erstwhile ignorance was bliss…

The lawyer warned that the ruling on Monday has “potentially damaging implications for free speech on the internet”.

This, of course, is the nub of the matter. Do we have the right to speak our minds or not? As an absolutist on free speech, I say “yes”. After all, Miss Cohen always has the option of replying to her critics, does she not?

Google said it sympathised with the victims of “cyberbullying” but also respected privacy concerns. As a result, it only divulged user information when ordered by a court to do so.

They had no choice in this case, more’s the pity. Frankly, claiming that this is cyberbullying is so much tosh. We have all experienced unpleasant people invading our virtual spaces and making disparaging remarks – indeed, I have experienced it again only this week. However, unlike real life bullying, it is relatively easily resolved. The simplest option is to disconnect by switching off the computer. If you own a blog or forum, these people can be locked out. If it is someone else’s blog, then don’t go there or leave your reply, whichever seems the most suitable. Worst comes to worst and the bully breaks the law, then take the relevant action.

But suing over a few insulting remarks, for Christ’s sake! Talk about a sledgehammer to open a cashew.

——————————————————

Update: I see that Kate Harding has written a very stupid article about this case in the groan. Given that she is unable to discern the difference between libel and slander, and libel and common abuse, there’s not much point dissecting it. Suffice to say, dear Kate thinks people should be sued if they call other people naughty names. So does Conor Foley in the comments to the risible piece. He thinks Harry’s Place should be shut down because the commenters say naughty things he doesn’t like. It doesn’t occur to this simpleton to simply not read it. We are surrounded by a bunch of witless pricks – and they all seem to write for the Guardian. JohnB meanwhile tries valiantly to inject some common sense in the comments. A Quixotic effort, I suspect. 

David Cameron is planning to take a “major gamble” with the NHS by “turning Britain’s best loved institution into the world’s biggest quango”, the health secretary, Andy Burnham, warns today.

Choke, cough splutter. A lack of self awareness that borders on the delusional, I think.

I notice from my stats that despite being banned, my troll is returning most evenings. Indeed, there were four attempts last night. All of which is interesting. Thrice during discussions he claimed to be going away and on each occasion he returned. It’s a bit like those emotive farewell posts on forums where people claim to be leaving and then never do. Given his open contempt for me, you wonder why he would want to bother.

The other interesting thing to note is that this troll, using an anonymous proxy, taunted me that an IP ban wouldn’t keep him away. Apart from IP banning this proxy and placing a referrer ban, I have also installed a plugin that prevents anonymous proxy users from completing online forms, such as comments. We will see how effective that one is (my test results didn’t stop me, so probably not very). Not that I have a problem with the general principle of anonymous proxies for genuine users seeking to preserve their privacy, but they are a useful tool for those who would abuse the system. Given that, I’m comfortable with taking this action for the moment. Once I’m happy that the troll is history, I can relax my defences.

So each evening, he comes back using the same series of IP addys. You would think he had got the message by now. Besides, any comments he leaves will be summarily removed, so why bother? Human nature is a funny thing.

——————————————-

Update 19/08/09: Another five attempts last night, all with the same block of IP addresses. Still not got the message, it seems.

Apparently Italy’s bloggers went on strike during July. I wonder how that works, then?

Joking aside, their concerns are real enough – heavy handed legislation that will effectively impinge on freedom of speech online and create an opportunity for the professionally offended to indulge in bullying. I’m surprised NuLab haven’t done it.

I see that Daniel Hannan has stirred up a hornet’s nest over his comments in the USA on the NHS. I also observed with amusement some of the ill-informed comment made by those US campaigners against Obama’s health reforms. One laughable statement made to a BBC reporter on the television being that Britons have to wait several months for a dental appointment and have you seen British teeth? Well, old bean, most dentists in the UK are now private and our teeth may not be all even and pearly white, but unlike their US counterparts, they are, at least, natural. Given the choice between a fake, pearly white all even plastic American smile and an uneven natural one, I’ll choose the latter thanks all the same.

Anyway, I digress, back to Hannan…

I noted that there have been calls for him to be disciplined. Here we go again… Dare to voice an opinion that deviates from the accepted norm and the media frenzy gets all out of hand. It doesn’t matter whether Hannan’s opinions are right, wrong or “eccentric”. He voiced an opinion. In a free world people are allowed to do this without being disciplined. It’s called freedom of speech.

Timothy Kirkhope said Mr Hannan should be given a “stern talking-to” by the chief whip in Brussels…

Better a world without party whips than a world without political renegades such as Daniel Hannan.