Scotland learns that you lie down with dogs…
…you get up with fleas.
MacAskill still thinks he did the right thing in releasing Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi, but he seems surprised that those nice Libyans didn’t keep their end of the “compassion” bargain:
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the warm homecoming welcome for al-Megrahi breached assurances from Libyan authorities that “any return would be dealt with in a low-key and sensitive fashion.”
“It is a matter of great regret that Mr. (al-) Megrahi was received in such an inappropriate manner,” MacAskill told the Scottish parliament. “It showed no compassion or sensitivity to the families of the 270 victims of Lockerbie.”
It reminds me just a tiny bit of Neville Chamberlain’s far more epic miscalculation when he said of Hitler that “here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”
Libya’s flouting of whatever agreement may have existed between Scotland (and/or the Brits) and Libya makes me think that perhaps there really was no quid pro quo, and that MacAskill is telling the truth when he says he acted out of a mere desire to show just how compassionate the Scottish people (and MacAskill) are. Otherwise, I would assume Libya wouldn’t feel so very comfortable thumbing its nose at MacAskill and his gullible ilk. My guess is that Libya rightly assumes there will be no negative consequences worth bothering about for breaking its word, and that MacAskill can impotently express his “great regret” all he wants.
Neo, the correct word for openly disregarding an agreement is “flout,” not “flaunt.”
Fixed. Haste makes waste, as I often learn.
However, the Libyans did a great job of flaunting their disrespect for the agreement.
Would a vain floutist flaunt his flute?
huxley: yes, their flouting involved flaunting.
But I don’t think I can use that as an excuse, much as I’d like to :-).
You were probably hungry with no buffet in sight.
It seems that I see homophonic and semi-homophonic mistakes such as flaunt/flout, pore/pour, reign/rein quite often these days.
At the rate things are going, flaunt will mean flout in another ten to twenty years.
Huxley–
You’d be surprised how often these errors turn up even in academic writing– I work as an academic editor and I find myself fixing this stuff all the time. And then there’s to/too, it’s/its, they’re/there/their, hear/here, and even hare/hair. Enough to give an editor a bad hare day, I suppose.
I believe MacAskill dealt with this case according to the dictates of Scottish law, without fear or favour. Yes the London government is up to its eyes in shady deals with Gadaffi, oh and wasn’t John McCain also in Libya recently.
MacAskill and the Scottish government certainly had nothing to gain except odium. He is to be applauded for upholding Scottish law -whether that law be good or ill – for the law is the basis of all those Enlightenment values which Scotland did as much as any land to bring to birth
another useful idiot.
“I believe MacAskill dealt with this case according to the dictates of Scottish law……for the law is the basis of all those Enlightenment values which Scotland did as much as any land to bring to birth”
I know nothing of Scottish law, but could someone please list those “Enlightenment values” which would permit an unrepentant murderer to go free. He already escaped the noose. What criminal act would be sufficient to keep a monster in prison? Apparently murdering 270 people doesn’t qualify. How about 2700, 27000…?
any return would be dealt with in a low-key and sensitive fashion
Sensitive? Sensitive?
Good God.
I hate to cloud the issue with facts, but the abolition of drawing and quartering as a punishment in Britain (1870) postdated the Enlighenment by about a century.
I’ve no doubt that MacAskill’s action was within the dictates of Scottish law but I would be surprised if his decision was required by Scottish law.
As I understand it, compassionate release can be granted if the prisoner has less than three months to live. But “can” is not the same as “must”.
Charles Manson comes up regularly for parole regularly and it would be within the dictates of American law to release him, but so far they have not.
Elmer Fudd had quite a lot of bad hare days. I’m just saying.
As to grammar and spelling, I do my very best to try to get them right. However, one weird thing I notice I do when typing blog comments (and speaking of homophones) is that I frequently omit things when the word or sound ‘no’ comes into play. For instance, if I’m typing a sentence that contains the word ‘know’ I’ll look back and realize I just didn’t type it, just left it out. I do that with the word ‘no’ sometimes, too, giving the exact opposite meaning of what I intended. I think my brain hears the word ‘no’ in my thoughts as I’m typing along and takes that as a negation and just doesn’t type it. It’s weird.
One of my latest minor language pet peeves is seeing people misspell “toe the line” as “tow the line”, like we’re hauling boats around or something. And just today I read a comment where someone talked about something being in a different faze, instead of phase. I knew it was wrong the second I saw it but it took me a few seconds to come up with the right word.
I hate to cloud the issue with facts, but the abolition of drawing and quartering as a punishment in Britain (1870) postdated the Enlighenment by about a century.
A difference between the forces of status quo and enlightenment will always ebb and flow — there is no utopia to achieve, but only to more earnestly strive for.
I like the allusion to Chamberlain. I think you’re right. Scotland miscalculated — and Britain, too.
I’ll have to disagree, Neo — I think there really was a quid pro quo but Qadaffi gave it no more respect than any good Muslim gives an infidel. We believe what Muslims tell us at our peril — they frequently do not find any problem with lying to a non-Muslim. F
Much as I hate to do it, Hux, duty calls. I must point out that homophonic has been superseded by a kindler, less linguistic sort of word and is now properly expressed as enraptured.
Nolanimrod: Link? Or are you joking? My quick google search failed to corroborate.
I write to communicate and if I used “enraptured” that way no one I know would know what I was talking about.
Many of these confounding and controversial deals with rogue states have backstories that may never be fully revealed.
Suppose as some have speculated al-Megrahi’s lawyers were about to obtain on appeal some intelligence and law enforcement documents revealing doubts about Libya’s centrality in the Flight 103 outrage.
Perhaps this is a most inopportune time to have the spotlight shift from wacky, isolated Libya to Iran and a Palestinian terror faction. Engagement, you know, and Israel-Palestine peace process prizes to protect.
A deal to turn over al-Magrahi would be too hot to handle for US or UK top levels, but let’s put this Scotland sovereignty thing to good use, eh? You know how independent those crusty Scots can be.
So there is a bit of a blowup during holiday month, all for a greater cause, right?