...that it lobbied the British government over a prisoner transfer deal with Libya in late 2007, but denied playing any role in the actual decision to release al-Megrahi nearly two years later.
"It is a matter of public record that in late 2007, BP told the U.K. government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya," BP said. "We were aware that this could have a negative impact on U.K. commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan government of BP's exploration agreement." more here
several governments including the USA (especially congress) can easily be faulted.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told NBC’s TODAY on Thursday that the U.K. government should investigate what role the company played in the decision to free Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in August 2009.
"We want a moratorium on the drilling [by BP] off Libya's coast. We believe BP should not be allowed to drill until we have resolution of this," she told the show.
The UK government was in all likelihood fully involved in any decision making and the US government was probably also in bed with the decision. Actually.... I'm kinda curious about the later.
ot to be in any way associated with JTT
point back to American support of terrorism
What I'm curious about is if there's any proof that the US government was part of any deal that included oil rights for BP (and oil for Americans) as part of going along with the deal to release Al-Megrahi.
He doesn't see any other conversation as valid.
It's not just support for terrorism,... it's also support for terrorism that will benefit American business interests, as JPB has noted. You trust his/her judgment, do you not?
As does any other company or country. My responses are restricted by what I can do in my "own" back yard. I can't affect policy other than by speaking out and by voting. In a very small way I can affect their bottom line. Joined with enough others the impact on bottom line can affect policy.