I couldn’t figure out this the whole let-the-terrorist-go thing the Brits did.
I think the New York Times may cut to the chase:
Colonel Qaddafi made his remarks as British and Scottish officials were doing their best to distance themselves from Mr. Megrahi’s release, which they insisted was decided without any pressure from London by Scotland’s justice secretary, and based solely on compassion for Mr. Megrahi’s terminal cancer, not Britain’s desire for multibillion-dollar Libyan oil contracts.
I see…
Well, I never trusted them limeys, anyway. Long live the spirit of 1776! Viva La France!
Besides, it’s not like we would ever make any dumb foreign policy decisions because of oil.
[dramatic pause]
I’m just happy I can call my fries french fries again. And maybe tomorrow I’ll have a nice freedom breakfast, you know, that breakfast with bangers and those crappy cooked tomatoes. And I’ll add a toasted buttered freedom muffin to soak up the egg yolk.
Meanwhile in unrelated news, a Kentucky prison burns. As does north suburban Athens.
I thought I saw something on 60 minutes or a similar show that revealed that the California prison system regularly released severely ill and older inmates on "compassionate release" due to their their healthcare costs which the government is responsible for, but once released they are off the hook. This Megrahi story has been reported as though no one in the US is ever released on compassionate grounds and that the Brits went soft. So is there "compassionate release" in the US or not?
From Canada
There is… but we're not too compassionate when it comes to prisoners. If it happens, I think it usually happens because the courts say the prison has to release somebody. So the pick the old guy with no legs and with terminal brain cancer.
Certain a guy who was convicted of killing a couple hundred people would not be released.
And prostate cancer? That's hardly the type of disease that'll get you tomorrow.