Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

There are reports that BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber on "humanitarian" grounds in exchange for a lucrative contract to drill off the Libyan shore.

The 2007 contract is worth $20B a year and BP starts drilling later this year.

In 2008, Great Britain released the Lockerbie bomber on "humanitarian grounds" based on a doctor's opinion that he had terminal cancer and would die within three months. He is still alive today.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/13/ ... l?hpt=Sbin

How about we execute BP executives & American politicians on humanitarian grounds.

griz37 wrote:How about we execute BP executives & American politicians on humanitarian grounds.

+1

Sounds like a Herculean stretch.

In a way, this story is more of an unintended condemnation of the UK style health system that Obama's new Director of Medicare and Medicaid loves so much.

Baldy wrote:Sounds like a Herculean stretch.

Really? I'd bet anything that BP lobbied hard and used all its influence to get the guy released. It's not much a stretch at all. Sorry. This is the way the guys at the top of these corporations operate. Few of them get there without abandoning principles along the way.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... e-convict/

Weeks after Mr. Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last August, following medical advice that he could die of prostate cancer in less than three months, The Wall Street Journal reported that BP said that a lobbyist for the company had pressed the British government to make it easier to send Libyans convicted of crimes in Britain back home.

The Journal reported that Mark Allen, a special adviser to BP and a former official in Britain’s MI6 intelligence service, had called Britain’s justice minister in October, 2007 to say that the company “was concerned that a delay in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt a $900 million oil deal it had just signed with the North African state in May, 2007.”

Speculation that British oil interests might have played a role in the controversial decision was heightened by remarks from Saif al Islam el-Qaddafi, whose father, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, is Libya’s leader. When Mr. Megrahi was released, the younger Mr. Qaddafi told him, in a conversation broadcast on Libyan television, “In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, you were always on the negotiating table.”

JoltinJoe wrote:

Baldy wrote:Sounds like a Herculean stretch.

Really? I'd bet anything that BP lobbied hard and used all its influence to get the guy released. It's not much a stretch at all. Sorry. This is the way the guys at the top of these corporations operate. Few of them get there without abandoning principles along the way.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... e-convict/

Weeks after Mr. Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last August, following medical advice that he could die of prostate cancer in less than three months, The Wall Street Journal reported that BP said that a lobbyist for the company had pressed the British government to make it easier to send Libyans convicted of crimes in Britain back home.

The Journal reported that Mark Allen, a special adviser to BP and a former official in Britain’s MI6 intelligence service, had called Britain’s justice minister in October, 2007 to say that the company “was concerned that a delay in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt a $900 million oil deal it had just signed with the North African state in May, 2007.”

Speculation that British oil interests might have played a role in the controversial decision was heightened by remarks from Saif al Islam el-Qaddafi, whose father, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, is Libya’s leader. When Mr. Megrahi was released, the younger Mr. Qaddafi told him, in a conversation broadcast on Libyan television, “In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, you were always on the negotiating table.”

Business 101

Profit first... all other concerns distant and secondary
BP is not on a humanitarian mission - they are a for profit global power house

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Really? I'd bet anything that BP lobbied hard and used all its influence to get the guy released. It's not much a stretch at all. Sorry. This is the way the guys at the top of these corporations operate. Few of them get there without abandoning principles along the way.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... e-convict/

Weeks after Mr. Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last August, following medical advice that he could die of prostate cancer in less than three months, The Wall Street Journal reported that BP said that a lobbyist for the company had pressed the British government to make it easier to send Libyans convicted of crimes in Britain back home.

The Journal reported that Mark Allen, a special adviser to BP and a former official in Britain’s MI6 intelligence service, had called Britain’s justice minister in October, 2007 to say that the company “was concerned that a delay in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt a $900 million oil deal it had just signed with the North African state in May, 2007.”

Speculation that British oil interests might have played a role in the controversial decision was heightened by remarks from Saif al Islam el-Qaddafi, whose father, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, is Libya’s leader. When Mr. Megrahi was released, the younger Mr. Qaddafi told him, in a conversation broadcast on Libyan television, “In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, you were always on the negotiating table.”

Business 101

Profit first... all other concerns distant and secondary
BP is not on a humanitarian mission - they are a for profit global power house

It seems the only lesson they learned in business school is that it is their fiduciary obligation to maximize return the shareholders. This justifies all.

JoltinJoe wrote:


It seems the only lesson they learned in business school is that it is their fiduciary obligation to maximize return the shareholders. This justifies all.

We've been told by every Republican free market capitalist since Reagan - let Business decide what's right and what's wrong - it'll all work out for the better...

Less regulation = a better America (period)

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:


It seems the only lesson they learned in business school is that it is their fiduciary obligation to maximize return the shareholders. This justifies all.

We've been told by every Republican free market capitalist since Reagan - let Business decide what's right and what's wrong - it'll all work out for the better...

Less regulation = a better America (period)

You're confusing old money capitalism with free market industrialism/neo-capitalism. Old money capitalists will selll their children for a nickel. Free market industrialists recognize that supply-demand is paramount. Supply-demand requires the ability to dynamically adjust QUICKLY, sans political agenda. In the Libyan case, politics interfered with business, so (assuming Joe is correct), BP merely removed the political issue from interfering with their business goal. Attempting to fault BP for a perceived absence of "humanitarianism" is ignorant.

BTW, Joe, could you tell me the ratio of American legal profession revenue to pro-bono?

In the end, mon Hippie, Old Money Capitalists will become anachronistic hoarders of wealth, reliant upon non-productive schemes such as the case with smoke and mirrors derivative markets, to maintain their "lifestyle". Industry will move on to cooperative financing, denying OMC's the means to profit from legitimate industry. Govt. will eventually cease it's Pavlovian obedience to OMC's and Wall Street (which utilizes the govt. regulatory stick to subjugate/advance it's agenda), once politicians recognize the votes which enable their existence originate from industry and workers, whose principal goals are a strong and progressive economy which create higher quality of life.

And that ain't socialism; that's industrialism. Obama and the Dems will learn this lesson very soon.

Ayn Rand wasn't far off the mark.