BP's record of valuing profits over human lives and safety has been well established. But would they go so far as to secure the release of a convicted terrorist, denying justice to 270 innocent victims and their families, in the pursuit of profits? According to BP's own statement today, they would and did:
“It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the U.K. government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement"
Four US Senators have written a letter to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to investigate BP's role in the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi from a Scottish jail. I think we all know exactly what that role was.
I knew that BP was reckless, destructive, irresponsible and well-deserving of my wraith, but this is just evil. BP, fuck you.
[Bloomberg.com]
I said at the time of al-Megrahi's release that he should have been permitted to rot in prison. I have prostate cancer, but I didn't kill 270 innocents.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. Letting him out was as much of a crime as what he did. I am sorry to hear about your cancer, may you conquer it and continue living.
ReplyDeletePosting from UK
ReplyDeleteHere there is also real concern about BP's actions but I'd make two very serious points. First, many of us in the UK are astounded at the ease with which US opinion has focused on the evil deeds of a so-called British company (40% owned by US shareholders, 20k US employees - plus the rig that blew up was owned and operated by a US contractor) while, at the same time, criticism of even worse atrocities committed by US companies (eg Union Carbide in Bhopal) is indignantly dismissed as being anti-American. Surely all wrong-doing by Corporate giants who want to generate profit at any cost should be condemned equally? Second, al-Megrahi was released by the Scottish Government - they are not the UK Government and are elected separately by a completely different electoral system and (as they are political opponents of both the current and previous UK Governments) do not take kindly to any interference by the UK.
I thought it important to put an alternative perspective without, in any way, seeking to minimise the horror of what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico.
To me it has nothing to do with BP being a British company - I would be just as angry if Exxon or any other company had done this. I understand that the Scottish government was responsible for his release, but there is some serious talk that this structure was agreed upon so that it wouldn't make it look like BP had forced the UK government's had. Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory, but maybe not. Still smells like dead fish to me.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much as well for your understanding of what has happened. I apologize if any of our rage seems focused on the British aspect - for me it is certainly not, other than those in Britain or anywhere else who seek to belittle this disaster.