Another Reason to Hate BP – Abdelbaset al- Megrahi
Yes, I used the word hate. In an attempt to curry favor with the Libyan government, BP helped to arrange a deal to bring home the terrorist which blew up over 200 on an airplane many Christmas’ ago in Scotland. I remember this, as I was about 8 then.
The senators, Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), are asking Secretary of State Clinton to find out.
It’s the latest move by U.S. leaders outraged that Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing, was freed from a Scottish prison 11 months ago on grounds that he had only three months to live.
Multiple reports have surfaced since than that Megrahi was released as part of a prison swap that was proposed in 2007, but not completed until 2009, while BP was negotiating to drill off the coast of Libya. BP got the deal after Megrahi got sent home to a hero’s welcome.
BP admits it had an interest in the prsioner swap, and was concerned it would derail its drilling deal, but the company insists it did push the Megrahi case.BP spokesman Mark Salt e-mailed the following:
- It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
- Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP’s exploration agreement.
- However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al-Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK Government.
Read more: here
This makes me ill.
Oh, and that terminally ill man who had days to live… he is suddenly better, living in luxury, with 10 years or more.
‘Negative consequences for UK commerical interests’….
270 People who don't use BP Oil
I guess this is Positive?
And you wonder why someone of us are for Government regulation on ‘capitalism’…
In: Other Posts · Tagged with: Abdelbaset al- Megrahi, BP, gobp, Lockerbie, oil spill
on July 14, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Permalink
I agree that the link to the Lockerbie bomber is a travesty. I was not aware of BP's involvement in that. However, I do not understand the boycott of BP based solely on the oil spill. This was an accident (brought on by negligence, I grant you). It could have happened to any of the oil companies drilling in the Gulf. If we run them out of business, who will pay for cleanup? I am buying as much of my gas at BP as I can for this reason.
on July 14, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Permalink
Greg, I didn't say anything about a boycott, although I believe it should happen. People seem to forget that BP is bigger than just the US… Further, the gas you buy is hardly a bp creation.
The article was about BP's skirting of justice for commerical sake. Further, it wasn't simply 'negligence' but a criminal attempt at profits above safety. They have a history of this, and frankly, they should throw every top level manager on down to the person who pulled the trigger in jail, sell BP to the highest bidder, using the profits to clean up not just the Gulf, but the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. and likely, Europe sooner or latter.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/in...
What BP has done is not negligence, but just as they had in Lockerbie, put 'commerical interest' above what is right.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/in...
As for me, I won't even look at BP station
on July 14, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Permalink
[...] Watts has written a post condoning hatred of BP. And although I think he’s substantially right on details, except that the post [...]
on July 14, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Permalink
And you wonder why someone of us are for Government regulation on ‘capitalism’…”
Since the word 'capitalism' found its way into the post (and you know how I am about capitalism), I must speak. I find it strange that an incident which occurred in a highly regulated field is used as a criticism of us deregulationist folk. One would think such incidents would make people wonder why our tax dollars get spent on regulations which, in the end, don't help us a bit. And it is also worth noting that regulations against near-shore and on-shore drilling have forced oil companies to drill in far deeper water than the unfettered market would lead them to–so it could plausibly be argued that regulation helped create this disaster. And our legal system puts a ridiculous liability cap on oil spills, so that oil companies work with the expectation that they won't have to pay the fishermen and other businessmen the full cost of their mistakes. Naw, I'd be inclined to think that it's more the government's failure to protect private property that's the problem here.
But if we're going to “hate” BP, why not hate the UK government even more? It was, after all, the UK government that decided to let the terrorist go, while BP committed the unconscionable but less reprehensible act of just encouraging the decision.
on July 14, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Permalink
Actually, I have not love for the UK government either. Regulation is meant to prevent such things as what happened in West Virginia and the Gulf, yet, after 8 years of deregulation, we question whether regulations at all? Further, what are regulations without enforcement?
As the reports have come out, oil production off the coasts have 'regulations' but they are hindered and often times unenforced. I say enforce them, and if necessary, place new ones one.
And you are correct about the cap. It is a ridiculous appeasement to the oil industry.