Talk:Abdelbaset al-Megrahi/Archive 3

Incorrect description of al Megrahi's arrival in Libya

While there were thousands of supporters, mostly young men, at the airport before al Megrahi arrived, they were ushered away by officials and there were only a few hundred when he actually landed and disembarked the aircraft. Libya was given harsh direction by many western government leaders to downplay the celebrations and they took heed, if only at the last minute. It would be unfair to portray the celebration for his arrival differently than they occured, no?

Thanks a lot, wikipedia is great! —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 216.126.117.138 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The point being that they were there, ushered away or not. --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Source it SGGH ^ping! 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Libyan intelligence officer

The article text says "... is a former Libyan intelligence officer". However, there does not seem to be any independent proof of this. He himself denies this. Most newspapers are more careful and describe him "A former head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA) and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli" and "worked - according to the FBI - for Libyan intelligence services". The source [3] given for his status, does not in fact contain this claim. {{editsemiprotected}} Maybe one could replace "is a former Libyan intelligence officer, head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli, Libya" by "was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA) and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli. According to the FBI he worked for the Libyan intelligence services". Barbara81 (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The link provided mentions that prosecuters claimed he was a Libyan intelligence officer, but they would say that seeing as they were...well, prosecutors surely?! If its going to state categorically that he was a Lybian intelligence officer, then a proper source should be provided. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The only source Ie been able to find is the following

"Intelligence officer

He described himself as the former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, a role which - the FBI claimed - gave him cover to act as an intelligence officer for the Libyan Intelligence Services (JSO).

Despite Megrahi's denials, this was accepted by judges who tried him. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7728434.stm

and again, it only reiterates an assertion from the accusers of his being one. 92.235.178.44(talk) 15:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I wondered at this myself, it seems that he is described as that in Court proceedings. Look on the negative side, if he wasn't a Libyan intelligence officer than why did he not say so?? --Cyber Fox (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well according to the BBC article, he did deny the assertion. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. The source, Aljazeera.net, does not state that the FBI asserted this; it states that the prosecutor described him this way. It also states that the court accepted the prosecutor's description; which makes this an accepted fact. I also checked some independent sources from a google search for 'Al Megrahi'. The first source on the list after Wikipedia, news.aol.com, included "The 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence officer served only eight years of his life sentence." Celestra (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Its only an accepted fact in a narrow sense (IE its believed by enough prominent and influential groups despite there being no other evidence than there believing/accepting each others assertions?) of accepted fact then. There is doubt from for instance Robert Black, who arranged the European trial in the first place, as to the factual acceptability in that narrow sense. I thought it meant it was a fact in the factual sense and not in the one youve described. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If he denied the description it suggests that the description was an assertion as to him being something he denies. Other than the descriptions given by the prosecution, what earlier verification is there for this description being used (say in Libya ) to describe Mr Megrahi? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

IE who was the original source for the description of Megrahi in a way that he denied and what evidence can be given for their objectivity seeing as the CIA at the time were less than objective in describing him surely?92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When I say CIA I mean the prosecution rather. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What Im getting at is the problem of different sources using each other as their authority to quote the same assertion and give it the semblence of a fact? If the original description was by the prosecution in Holland, then isnt this a worrying basis for its established veracity as a fact? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no other source than the prosecution, who refers to the FBI. Some refs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19214/Al-Megrahi-The-Lockerbie-bomber.html Al Megrahi was said to be a former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, and chief of airline security for Libyan Arab Airlines. The FBI alleged that was a cover, and that Al Megrahi was in fact a Libyan intelligence officer

http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abdel_basset_ali_al-megrahi.htm He was alleged by the FBI to be a Libyan intelligence officer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7728434.stm He described himself as the former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, a role which - the FBI claimed - gave him cover to act as an intelligence officer for the Libyan Intelligence Services. Despite Megrahi's denials, this was accepted by judges who tried him.

NYTimes: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/abdel_basset_ali_al_megrahi/index.html At the time of the bombing, Mr. Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, the state carrier. But an F.B.I. investigation concluded that his job was a cover for his work as an intelligence officer for the Libyan intelligence service, which Mr. Megrahi denied but which the court accepted in finding him guilty. Barbara81 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Its factualness is therefore more ambiguous in regards to "being a fact" than its description as such would indicate.92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said over at Barbara81's talk page, the current source and the majority of other sources I found while servicing this edit request support the current text and do not support the requested change. The current source, for instance, does not mention where the prosecutor obtained the information, just that the court agreed with it. There are a handful of sources that choose to be overly cautious in describing his relationship to Libyan intelligence, but even most of those go on to acknowledge that the court accepted that he was indeed a Lybian intelligence officer. Changing that requires a significant ammount of reliable sourcing that claim he is not a Lybian intelligence officer, not simply a few source that fail to claim that he is. Celestra (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we know what evidence was offered to the three judges that helped them reach this conclusion? Is there any evidence of him working as an intelligence officer as opposed to evidence of three judges accepting the accusation by the FBI? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If the other sources have the court acceptance as their original source, then the question needs to be asked, what prior source can be offered as evidence for the factual accuracy of the initial FBI assertion surely?92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If Richard Dawkins accepted that the Archbishop of Cantebury believed the assertion by the FBI that Jesus was the son of God, should that be stated to be a fact on his page? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

These statements have nothing to do with improving the article. Reliable sources are presumed to be correct. Where there is disagreement between reliable sources, we present that disagreement without participating in it. If you can find reliable sources that claim he is not a former Lybian intelligence officer, we can see how to fit those claims into the article in abalanced manner. Until then, please read WP:TALKNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumed on what basis? If the source has merely asserted a belief, then their reliance on it does not make it a fact in layman's terms. I find it deeply misleading to find that the reference provided doesnt give clear evidence of his work as an "intelligence officer" and was dissapointed at this lack of evidence. My discussion of the topic is quite specific. Its a cross examination of the legitemacy of putting the statement that he was an intelligence officer there without proper verifiable evidence. You might as well use BNP pamphlets as evidence for the "facts" they assert regarding racial theories. Thanks.92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a high probability due to the references being at the bottom of the page, that (as with the details on packaging) most people wont check them all out, and blunt repetitions of the facts they are the references for will lead them to presume that the references provided must be substantial (say a dossier of his work as anintelligence officer in Arabic or photographice evidence, who knows, but not just a repetition of the opinions agreed upon at a juryless trial asserted originally as far as we can tell by the FBI). 92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

" If you can find reliable sources that claim he is not a former Lybian intelligence officer, we can see how to fit those claims into the article in a balanced manner."

That's back to front. No evidence exists other than assertions by the FBI. No evidence exists showing that he was an intelligence officer, merely evidence of it being believed by the three Scottish judges chosen for the trial and various magazines and news media quoting it as a fact.it remains an assertion, unless verifiable evidence can be cited.92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It really does appear that there is no such evidence. There was talk that the two accused used their jobs as cover for their intelligence work but we all know where that got them with the second accused...acquitted! There is no such evidence so I seriously think that any references to such should be prefixed by 'alleged'. --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not our job as editors to weigh the evidence and determine the truth. We merely present what is found in the reliable sources in a balanced way. You will not find many reliable sources which continue to say 'alleged' and 'accused' after the individual is convicted. Seriously, a change of that sort would be difficult to interpret in an NPOV way. Celestra(talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you will. There mostly in Arabic (and possibly French) buit there no less reliable than the American and British and Australian magazines and news broadcasts that use the claims of the FBI as a source for their belief without evidence. Please dont be culturally biased in your assumptions. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The point Im getting at is why presume that English language sources are any more reliable than others, when its clear to most people how differentally "facts" are treated/maintained created through their differing citation on various news media. Hence why the Left and Right claim bias in the media in the United States and John Stewart lampoons Fox News. If we were to take on board the views of Chinese, Libyan and English language media, it would equally be a fact and a non fact as the reliable sources would be self contradictary (ie not in reality reliable as sources). Our job as editors, is to cite a real source showing that the statement that he was an intelligence officer can be verified and not just agree with the opinions of the FBI and three judges. (What evidence did the judges see/hear/witness? thats the kind of evidence necessary for such a statement as him being an intelligence officer in a wikipedia article rather than a media news article)92.235.178.44 (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible new section

I'm thinking we may need to add a new section entitled 'Aftermath' or something like that since there's likely to be a lot more to come with regard to this situation. We have the possible involvement of the Westminster Government at some level, Peter Mandelson's meetings with Saif Gaddafi and a recall of the Scottish Parliament to discuss the release. Some of this could be covered in the existing sections possibly, but here's a few ideas anyway. I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this.TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

In the days following Megrahi's release and return to Libya speculation began to mount as to the possible involvement of theWestminster Government in the Scottish Government's decision, particularly after Saif Gaddafi claimed that Megrahi's case had been discussed during business talks with the UK, and after Colonel Gaddafi thanked Gordon Brown for "encouraging" the release. This prompted Downing Street to confirm that Mr Brown had discussed a possible release with Gaddafi during the G8 summit in Italy in July 2009, but that a letter sent by Mr Brown to the Libyan leader had stressed, “When we met I stressed that, should the Scottish Executive decide that Megrahi can return to Libya, this should be a purely private, family occasion.” Mandelson

It was also claimed that Business Secretary Peter Mandelson had met Saif Gaddafi on at least two occasions at which a release had been discussed. Mandelson confirmed this, but said that he had told Gaddafi that any release was entirely a matter for the Scottish Justice Secretary. He went on to describe as "offensive" any suggestions that a release had been linked to a trade deal with Libya.

On 20 August 2009 it was announced that the Scottish Parliament would be recalled the following Monday to discuss the release. An earlier call for it to be reconvened had been dismissed. Former First Secretary Jack McConnell said, "The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to take action to repair some of the damage done. I believe that the Scottish Parliament should make clear that this decision was not made by the people of Scotland and that it does not have the endorsement of the Scottish people."

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a talk page. Hi Retroguy, this is a talk page, please refrain from adding multiple links as you did in your proposed new section above. Please sign your edits as this is helpful to other users. --Cyber Fox (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I see a section has been started, so I'm going to be bold and add the information i collected earlier.TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually if the repercussions from the release continue we may have to consider splitting information regarding the release into a separate article - something like 'Megrahi release controversy' perhaps. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the way this is panning out God knows what will fall out of the tree if it is shaken enough! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Conviction section is actually only about appeals

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Please change the section entitled "Conviction" to "Appeals" -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, hope it is OK and an acceptable format, certainly is easy enough to follow. --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better. I think if you added {{expand-section}} under the new trial section I can wait out the rest of the semi-protection period patiently. :) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped in too quick, I am relatively new to all this. Can you add the'expand' on my behalf as I haven't done this before? --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, stupid me, you cannot do it. I'll have a go. --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)