Scotland Releases Lockerbie bomber to Libya

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well I hear on the news today as I am driving that Scotland allowed the Lockerbie bomber go back to Libya where he apparently got a hero's welcome.

I am all for compassion, but this guy didn't show any putting a bomb on an airliner. Where was the compassion to those blownout of the sky falling 29000 feet to their deaths?

I think the Scottish justice minister meant well, but he has obviously taken leave of his senses.

The Libyans? well I still think there was more to this than this mook, but the fact the citizens cheered his return means little in a nation that people are told what the news is....but it is sad.

[Ranger]

Outrageous. Disgusting.

[Drew]

Either way people would moan, either way the papers would moan. As he's let out the papers state that he didn't show compassion and was a terrorist, if he was kept in they'd moan about how much money he was costing the system and no doubt the price of sending him in a box back to Libya.

[Roamy]

someone just should have put a 50 cal sniper round through him as he got off the plane!!

[Daniel]

The right thing to do. Two wrongs don't make a right and this was an opportunity for Scotland to show that they're better than the terrorists and they have done well.

[Easy Drifter]

I agree totally with releasing him.
It is the location I disagree with.
He should have been released alone in Lockerbie, with advance notice.

[Mark]

The right thing to do. Two wrongs don't make a right and this was an opportunity for Scotland to show that they're better than the terrorists and they have done well.

Agreed. The UK (well at least Scotland) is a civilised nation with a civilised government and we are a civilised people. We show compassion to others even if they show none to us.

I think the decision took great courage. I'm not sure I could have made it.

[markabilly]

someone just should have put a 50 cal sniper round through him as he got off the plane!!
:up:

As well through those whiney, whimpering cowards and idiots who let him go.

And since they did let him go, they should be locked up to serve what he should have been given:a quick but painful execution

27 years for what he did was the sentence, which was a joke.

Good news, he will be dead soon, so he can burn in hell.

No wonder those with any balls look down at the cowards and losers who now inhabit the wasted remains of a once great and mighty country// :down: :down:

[Ranger]

The right thing to do. Two wrongs don't make a right and this was an opportunity for Scotland to show that they're better than the terrorists and they have done well.

You may as well admit that you advocate the release of all terminally ill prisoners to their home, no matter how atrocious their crimes.

[Daniel]

You may as well admit that you advocate the release of all terminally ill prisoners to their home, no matter how atrocious their crimes.
There is a difference. Ronnie Biggs was released recently and I don't believe he should have been. He dodged justice and paraded himself around and made a whole scene of it. I think Biggs should have been made to die in jail away from family in as much pain as possible for the way he acted.

On the other hand there is significant doubt as to whether this guy was actually the bomber or just a scapegoat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8211596.stm

Is it not conceivable that the authorities wanted a scapegoat to put away and show to the victims rather than not ever catching anyone and risk being labelled as ineffective and not caring about the families etc etc.

I find it significant that Scottish flags were being waved in Tripoli, this shows that there is now a level of respect between the two nations. If Scotland hadn't released him all it would have achieve would be to show that they're a heartless bunch of ****s and what does that achieve?

What does keeping this guy locked up for another 3 months do? It shows that we're no better than the person who put the bomb on that plane.

If he was indeed the bomber then I do find the heroes welcome rather distasteful to be honest. But no one knows if he was ACTUALLY the bomber or not....

[Daniel]

Agreed. The UK (well at least Scotland) is a civilised nation with a civilised government and we are a civilised people. We show compassion to others even if they show none to us.

:up:

It will only be through us showing others that we're better than them that we'll end this war on terror......

Props to Scotland for doing this. It shows them as being the bigger man in all of this.

[Mark]

Aside from the issues involved, it's definitely put Scotland on the international political map, as a country in it's own right, able to act independently from England.

[AndyRAC]

Aside from the issues involved, it's definitely put Scotland on the international political map, as a country in it's own right, able to act independently from England.

Which looks to have caused the US some 'confusion' - normally when they put pressure on the UK, we jump. In this case, Obama wasn't keen on him being released, however, Scotland took no notice and released him anyway.

[pino]

The right thing to do. Two wrongs don't make a right and this was an opportunity for Scotland to show that they're better than the terrorists and they have done well.

I disagree, for what he did he should've stay in prison until last second of his life !

[Daniel]

I disagree, for what he did he should've stay in prison until last second of his life !
But nobody actually knows 100% whether he did it.

If there was no doubt then perhaps I'd agree, but there is doubt and as such he should be returned home to die with his family.

[chuck34]

What a joke. Compassion? I heard one of the victim's family members say that he already got compassion when he was given Life, not executed.

This is just plain dumb. I don't care how sick his is. I don't care how much money it would cost to keep him. I don't care how much "suffering" he was going through. Keep him there until the end of his natural life. Prisions are one area I'm happy to fund fully. And by fully I don't mean TV's, exercise equip, and the like. I mean 4 walls, a cot, and 3 squares a day.

[chuck34]

But nobody actually knows 100% whether he did it.

If there was no doubt then perhaps I'd agree, but there is doubt and as such he should be returned home to die with his family.

What? He was convicted of the crime, was he not? If there truly is some doubts, aren't there appeals in Scotland?

[Daniel]

What? He was convicted of the crime, was he not? If there truly is some doubts, aren't there appeals in Scotland?

:rotflmao:

You have too much faith in the system.

[chuck34]

:rotflmao:

You have too much faith in the system.

So screw the system and release anyone you feel like? Come on man, I thought you had more sence than that.

[Daniel]

So screw the system and release anyone you feel like? Come on man, I thought you had more sence than that.
That's not it dude.

There is a chance this man is innocent.

Do we

A) Assume he's guilty and leave him to rot in a prison and serve out his final few days wrongfully in a foreign prison

B) Let a guilty man go free and spend a few weeks or months with his family

C) Let an innocent man go free to spend his last few days in a prison

Now I'll assume you're a fan of option A. Explain to me why this is so good? What message does this send to other countries?

Worst case scenario, what is so wrong with B? It sends the message that if you commit an atrocity such as this that you will be sent away to prison for a long time and if you have a terminal disease Scotland won't be an arse about it. Being sent home for a few months with terminal cancer is hardly a victory for this guy. He will be dead in a few months and will die a rightly or wrongly convicted man.

Reading this statement from Mr al-Megrahi shows from my point of view why he should be treated differently to Ronnie Biggs for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8212910.stm

[BDunnell]

What? He was convicted of the crime, was he not? If there truly is some doubts, aren't there appeals in Scotland?

There are very, very serious doubts - evidence-based doubts - about the conviction. For a start, it could very well be that the bomb got into the airline baggage system at Heathrow, which would throw the whole story that provided the basis for the conviction into a different light. Having read quite extensively on the subject, I personally do not believe that al-Megrahi should have been convicted, so in one sense justice could well have been done. And does anyone seriously believe that even if he was involved, he was acting alone? Furthermore, he did appeal, but the process was stopped when it became clear to him and his legal team that he was likely to be released early.

However, the victims and their families will now never see any form of justice, in all probability. If al-Megrahi was not the right man, and even if this is subsequently somehow proved, then it is extremely unlikely that anyone else will ever be tried. If he was the right man, I can understand why seeing him being released early, and arriving back to a hero's welcome in Libya,. might be deeply distasteful to some.

I must say that I agree with those who say that Scotland's actions in releasing him on compassionate/medical grounds is in one sense to be applauded as a means of showing how a truly civilised nation behaves. That said, I dislike the fact that this will probably now be the end of the matter. Further investigation is called for to determine once and for all whether a miscarriage of justice was committed. If it was, the decision to let al-Megrahi out will be proved right, just and proper, and proper justice should be sought. If it wasn't, he will be dead anyway, thus pleasing the 'eye for an eye' brigade to some extent.

[Daniel]

However, the victims and their families will now never see any form of justice, in all probability. If al-Megrahi was not the right man, and even if this is subsequently somehow proved, then it is extremely unlikely that anyone else will ever be tried. If he was the right man, I can understand why seeing him being released early, and arriving back to a hero's welcome in Libya,. might be deeply distasteful to some.

I think the case is strong for seeing the conviction of al-Megrahi as nothing more than an effort to find a scapegoat so justice could be seen to be done and the families could delight in taking revenge upon someone.

I think it said a lot that Hilary Clinton frankly didn't seem visibly bothered about his impending release said it all. I think there are serious doubts as to the legitimacy of his conviction and while the authorities all know it they don't want to say it because then the families will want them to go out and find the killers and that won't be easy, in fact it'll be impossible.

[BDunnell]

I think the case is strong for seeing the conviction of al-Megrahi as nothing more than an effort to find a scapegoat so justice could be seen to be done and the families could delight in taking revenge upon someone.

I think it said a lot that Hilary Clinton frankly didn't seem visibly bothered about his impending release said it all. I think there are serious doubts as to the legitimacy of his conviction and while the authorities all know it they don't want to say it because then the families will want them to go out and find the killers and that won't be easy, in fact it'll be impossible.

Especially seeing as bringing al-Megrahi to trial was, I believe, really an acceptable compromise between the UK and Libya at a time when we were desperate to improve relations and, crucially, trade. It now appears, though, as if Gaddafi may have scuppered things somewhat by virtue of the reception al-Megrahi received on arrival in Tripoli. Not a clever move on his part at all.

[chuck34]

That's not it dude.

There is a chance this man is innocent.

Do we

A) Assume he's guilty and leave him to rot in a prison and serve out his final few days wrongfully in a foreign prison

B) Let a guilty man go free and spend a few weeks or months with his family

C) Let an innocent man go free to spend his last few days in a prison

Now I'll assume you're a fan of option A. Explain to me why this is so good? What message does this send to other countries?

Worst case scenario, what is so wrong with B? It sends the message that if you commit an atrocity such as this that you will be sent away to prison for a long time and if you have a terminal disease Scotland won't be an arse about it. Being sent home for a few months with terminal cancer is hardly a victory for this guy. He will be dead in a few months and will die a rightly or wrongly convicted man.

Reading this statement from Mr al-Megrahi shows from my point of view why he should be treated differently to Ronnie Biggs for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8212910.stm

I am not a fan of your option A. I am a fan of the legal system. He was convicted of a crime. It is not my place to say if that convicition was right or wrong. It is the legal system's place to determine wether or not he was wrongfully convicted.

Your option B is beyond any sort of "compassion". What compassion did he show his victims? Did they get to spend their last few days saying goodbye to their family? There is compassion and then there's being a sucker.

I don't understand your option C. I assume you typed something wrong, but I'm not sure what.

So my option would be to let him sit in jail until his appeal (as BDunnell says one was underway) has been heard. If there are mitigating factors, such as terminal cancer, that appeal process should be hurried along. Letting this man free to be hailed as a hero at home and elsewhere does nothing for anyone.

[Daniel]

I am not a fan of your option A. I am a fan of the legal system. He was convicted of a crime. It is not my place to say if that convicition was right or wrong. It is the legal system's place to determine wether or not he was wrongfully convicted.

Your option B is beyond any sort of "compassion". What compassion did he show his victims? Did they get to spend their last few days saying goodbye to their family? There is compassion and then there's being a sucker.

I don't understand your option C. I assume you typed something wrong, but I'm not sure what.

So my option would be to let him sit in jail until his appeal (as BDunnell says one was underway) has been heard. If there are mitigating factors, such as terminal cancer, that appeal process should be hurried along. Letting this man free to be hailed as a hero at home and elsewhere does nothing for anyone.
Sorry :)

C should have read as such
C) Let an innocent man go free to spend his last few days with his family

That'll teach me to multitask.

I agree him being hailed as a hero might seem a bit distasteful but that's just the western media putting their slant on things. It may just be that the media in Libya feel that he's innocent and he's being welcomed back as an innocent man. I feel the Scottish flags show that they respect this decision and this is an important thing.

As for the reasons for compassion if you listen to Kenny MacAskill's statement he justifies it quite well. If we assume that he is guilty then that's still no reason to go and do the same thing to him and show that we're just as big a bunch of tossbags as the people or persons who planted that bomb.

[Daniel]

So my option would be to let him sit in jail until his appeal (as BDunnell says one was underway) has been heard. If there are mitigating factors, such as terminal cancer, that appeal process should be hurried along. Letting this man free to be hailed as a hero at home and elsewhere does nothing for anyone.

It's my opinion that the appeal going forward would have been an unwelcome thing for the UK and the US. As things are now people are not happy with him being released but when he passes away they will at least be able to say that the person who did it is dead and burried. IF the appeal had gone ahead and he was found to have been wrongfully convicted then this opens up another can of worms, who did this and why haven't the govts caught them etc etc.

Leaving al-Megrahi to rot in jail or be released as a guilty man is the least troubling of outcomes for the governments involved because it means they don't have to do **** about finding the real bombers if al-Megrahi didn't do it.

[anthonyvop]

:up:

It will only be through us showing others that we're better than them that we'll end this war on terror......

Really?
The ONLY WAY?

[Daniel]

Really?
The ONLY WAY?
Well trying to kill everyone who lives in the countries you like doesn't seem to be working :rolleyes:

[chuck34]

It's my opinion that the appeal going forward would have been an unwelcome thing for the UK and the US. As things are now people are not happy with him being released but when he passes away they will at least be able to say that the person who did it is dead and burried. IF the appeal had gone ahead and he was found to have been wrongfully convicted then this opens up another can of worms, who did this and why haven't the govts caught them etc etc.

Leaving al-Megrahi to rot in jail or be released as a guilty man is the least troubling of outcomes for the governments involved because it means they don't have to do **** about finding the real bombers if al-Megrahi didn't do it.

I guess I'm not seeing your logic. The way I see it there are two possible "truths" here.

#1) He was guility. And as such Scotland just let a guilty man out of prision. Why not now that murderer, or that rapist, or anyone else? All you have to do is get cancer, and you're out? What sence does that make?

#2) He was innocent. The appeal process would have eventually proven that, and then the UK/US would have had to look for the people that were actually behind that. But now that he is out of prision, the appeal has been dropped. He's still officially the guilty party. His name has not been cleared, and the "real" bad guys are still out there, but no one is looking for them.

What has been acomplished by this release?

[Daniel]

I take your points Chuck and they are valid :up: On the flipside nothing has really been lost, he's hardly walked free has he?

I thing point 2 can be explained by govts possibly wanting to cover things up.

[BDunnell]

So my option would be to let him sit in jail until his appeal (as BDunnell says one was underway) has been heard. If there are mitigating factors, such as terminal cancer, that appeal process should be hurried along. Letting this man free to be hailed as a hero at home and elsewhere does nothing for anyone.

I would generally agree with that, but whatever happens the problem is the issue of wishing to maintain good relations with Libya. It shouldn't intrude, but it does; it probably precluded the right person standing trial, in my view, and were the case ever to be re-investigated it surely would do so again. I think that far more harm has been done by the reception al-Megrahi received on Libyan soil than the actual act of releasing him, which may well have been the right thing to do even without his illness.

[BDunnell]

It may just be that the media in Libya feel that he's innocent and he's being welcomed back as an innocent man.

I think this is a very good point.

[chuck34]

I would generally agree with that, but whatever happens the problem is the issue of wishing to maintain good relations with Libya. It shouldn't intrude, but it does; it probably precluded the right person standing trial, in my view, and were the case ever to be re-investigated it surely would do so again. I think that far more harm has been done by the reception al-Megrahi received on Libyan soil than the actual act of releasing him, which may well have been the right thing to do even without his illness.

Perhaps I just don't understand as much of this particular case, but I don't understand this thinking. It seems that people are saying that this guy was innocent, but some sort of sacrifical lamb put up by Lybia to improve relations. If that was the case, why do they want him back now? If it was a case where the US/UK just grabbed the first Lybian and threw him in jail for this act, why wouldn't the Lybian gov. want him completely cleared.

I think I must be missing something.

[anthonyvop]

A CONVICTED MASS MURDERER was released due to compassion?

How can anyone defend that?

[Roamy]

A CONVICTED MASS MURDERER was released due to compassion?

How can anyone defend that?

Easy - Mass Murders live at will in The Islamic Republic of Europe. So letting one go to Africa is supported.

[GridGirl]

I was wondering when someone was going to turn this thread into an anti-Muslim and lets nuke them all thread. Some people never fail me.

al-Megrahi said: "The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction.
"I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.
"The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome."

al-Megrahi only dropped his appeal in the last few days and seems quite angry about being released without being cleared. Whether this would have ever happened is just a what if now as no one will want to spend vast amounts of money trying to difinatively prove whether a dead man is guilty or innocent.

[chuck34]

I was wondering when someone was going to turn this thread into an anti-Muslim and lets nuke them all thread. Some people never fail me.

al-Megrahi said: "The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction.
"I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.
"The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome."

al-Megrahi only dropped his appeal in the last few days and seems quite angry about being released without being cleared. Whether this would have ever happened is just a what if now as no one will want to spend vast amounts of money trying to difinatively prove whether a dead man is guilty or innocent.

Personally I would have rather died in prison only to have my name cleared posthumously. I would rather die an innocent man than die a guilty man. But that's just me I guess. *shrugs*

[Daniel]

Personally I would have rather died in prison only to have my name cleared posthumously. I would rather die an innocent man than die a guilty man. But that's just me I guess. *shrugs*
Each to his/her own. Personally I'd rather die with family. Screw whatever the rest of the world thinks. At least you know deep down whether or not you're guilty or innocent.

[GridGirl]

Personally I would have rather died in prison only to have my name cleared posthumously. I would rather die an innocent man than die a guilty man. But that's just me I guess. *shrugs*

Without time to have an appeal go to court al-Megrahi was always going to die a guilty man whether he is guilty or not. There is no opportunity for him to die an innocent man. Maybe to him, he is now dying an innocent man whilst not proven innocent but like Daniel said would rather die with his family.

The case is pretty much now closed in my opinion because I really don't think anyone will really want to pay for anything that will posthomously prove him innocent or not.

[BDunnell]

al-Megrahi only dropped his appeal in the last few days and seems quite angry about being released without being cleared. Whether this would have ever happened is just a what if now as no one will want to spend vast amounts of money trying to difinatively prove whether a dead man is guilty or innocent.

I doubt that would ever have happened before his death, whether or not the release went ahead. There is no political will to do so.

[BDunnell]

Without time to have an appeal go to court al-Megrahi was always going to die a guilty man whether he is guilty or not. There is no opportunity for him to die an innocent man.

In my view, that's exactly right.

[Daniel]

I doubt that would ever have happened before his death, whether or not the release went ahead. There is no political will to do so.
Or after. They can only lose in the eyes of the victims families.

al-Megrahi is proven guilty - They've let a guilty man go free even if only for a few months to die

al-Megrahi proven innovent - Where the hell is the killer and why hasn't he been brough to justice?

[Roamy]

All I can say about the action of Scotland is "Never trust a man that wears a skirt" !!

[Sonic]

All I can say about the action of Scotland is "Never trust a man that wears a skirt" !!

:wave:

[GridGirl]

Try saying that comment in a Glasgow pub on a Saturday night. :p I just got back from a holiday in Scotland last week. Those heatherns from the north ain't that bad at all but they do have funny money. ;)

[Roamy]

Not all Scots are bad- Hell some play golf. And they do make Scotch with is right up there in the world treasures

[Sonic]

....And they do make Scotch with is right up there in the world treasures

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.... :beer:

[Roamy]

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.... :beer:

CHIVAS REGAL 21 Year Old 'Royal Salute'
Walker green or blue

then the 12 yrs
then the 5 yres

then just about open anything even scorsby

I have pumped a hell of a lot of money into your country over my lifetime :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

Now that I am home, I have thought about it.

I am all for compassion if the criminal in question showed compassion in the commision of the crime. IN this case, he did not. Furthermore, Ben, in your assessment that releasing him is helping relations with the Libyans is nonsense. Libya is a dictatorship ruled by Quadaffi, and while he has sort of turned some sort of corner as a world citizen, he is a dictator in the Muslim world. They respect two things: Force, and people with the courage of their convictions. The whole reason he allowed inspectors and gave up his nukes was because of what Bushie and Blair did to Iraq and he didn't want to be under that scrutiny. He hid this mook and the accomplices that helped do this bombing becuase there was a lot of conjecture that this was a state sponsored operation.

So we have a man who was in the employ either legally or covertly likely of the Libyan govermment who helped plant a bomb on a civilian airliner. If he wasn't guilty, he was part of the opration and was extradited by his "leader"as a scapegoat, or actually was the man who did it. He was tried in a court that would give him a fair trial. (you can say he was railroaded, but there is an appeal process and the trial he got was far more fair than anything in most of the nations of the Islamic world). He did time, was appealing and dropped it to get sent back to Libya, where he got a hero's welcome because the government there of course woudl make him be an innocent man, and in a world where the press is told what to say, what else would he be to the people? This was a propaganda coup for Quadaffi and is an insult. When A leftish libreal type like Obama is nauseated by this release, you know this is BS.

The Scot's are usually so wise.....in this case, this "justice"minister obviously thinks if he turns the other cheek long enough, people will leave him alone. THey will when they unelect him I suspect. ....

A shame...there was no compassion for the victims of that flight.....

[BDunnell]

Furthermore, Ben, in your assessment that releasing him is helping relations with the Libyans is nonsense.

That's not actually what I said. Nowhere did I say that he has been released in order to assist relations with Libya, although, rather perversely, some Libyans may well feel better-disposed towards the Scots (and possibly the British if they make the distinction) than they did as a result of his release.

I was referring to the fact that al-Megrahi being given up for trial in the first place was viewed not only with some suspicion - did he act alone, was he really the right man, and so on - but also as a sign of the warming of relations with Libya. This, at least in part, was clearly motivated by a mutual desire to trade. At around the same time, the end of the 1990s, Libya accepted responsibility for the shooting of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher and paid damages. Again, no coincidence. There are doubts about what really happened in both cases - those about Lockerbie are well-known, and some experts do not believe it to have been possible for WPC Fletcher to have actually been shot from the Libyan embassy. Likewise, in both cases, a line was drawn underneath them in spite of these serious doubts.

It is all very well for North Americans to, understandably, be angry about al-Megrahi's release in spite of the fact that it sends out no 'message' to terrorists about our being 'weak' in dealing with them, because his release would not have been considered had he not been suffering from a terminal illness. This cannot be stressed enough. However, maybe those same North Americans, especially Obama and Clinton, and indeed the British Government and Scottish Executive, should take more seriously the claims that the wrong man was in jail all along, and seek to investigate this - except they won't, because, in my opinion, to do so would 'rock the boat' too much in terms of relations with Libya and potentially other countries as well. So, now, albeit partially as a result of circumstances (i.e. al-Megrahi's terminal illness), we have an outcome that is utterly unsatisfactory for everybody.

[Daniel]

the British Government and Scottish Executive, should take more seriously the claims that the wrong man was in jail all along, and seek to investigate this - except they won't, because, in my opinion, to do so would 'rock the boat' too much in terms of relations with Libya and potentially other countries as well. So, now, albeit partially as a result of circumstances (i.e. al-Megrahi's terminal illness), we have an outcome that is utterly unsatisfactory for everybody.

What? You mean actually spend money and take the time to possibly find out that they had the wrong man all along? :laugh:

The families of the victims would be reeeeeeeally happy then if they found out they'd not caught the bombers at all :)

[Mark]

What? You mean actually spend money and take the time to possibly find out that they had the wrong man all along? :laugh:

The families of the victims would be reeeeeeeally happy then if they found out they'd not caught the bombers at all :)

Well many British relatives at least seem to believe they haven't.

[BDunnell]

What? You mean actually spend money and take the time to possibly find out that they had the wrong man all along? :laugh:

Not so much spend money, as cause all the hassle of potentially harming diplomatic relations. Never mind the truth!

[Daniel]

Well many British relatives at least seem to believe they haven't.
Yup. IMHO it's a lose lose situation for the governments involved. Find out that a guilty man was let out which will anger the families from the USA who are seemingly interested in nothing more than vengeance OR find out that an innocent man was put away in which case the US families will want "justice" for their loved ones while conveniently forgetting that al-Mergrahi didn't get justice.

[chuck34]

It is all very well for North Americans to, understandably, be angry about al-Megrahi's release in spite of the fact that it sends out no 'message' to terrorists about our being 'weak' in dealing with them, because his release would not have been considered had he not been suffering from a terminal illness.

What? How can releasing a man that your government still says is guilty not be seen as being weak?

Maybe you need to explain your point better. The way I see your argument, and correct me where I'm wrong, is that Libya put this guy up as some sort of scapegoat in order to improve relations with the West. We all knew about this, but convicted the man anyway. Now he gets cancer, the Scots get a conscience, and let him go on "compassion" grounds.

Do I have that right? If so, why wouldn't the Scots just put on some sort of a "show trial" of an appeal? That way the would be releasing an innocent man, not a criminal.

I just don't see how this helps anyone with anything. And by the way, compassion for this guy would be to give him medical treatment, ease his suffering, allowing his family to visit him in prision. That would be compassion, releasing him is just being overly simpathetic. Plus, since all laws are based on president, what kind of president does this now set. Like I said before, all you have to do now is come down with cancer, and you're a free man.

[BDunnell]

Well many British relatives at least seem to believe they haven't.

I would be interested to hear whether or not similar sentiments are shared by any number of American relatives of the deceased. Certainly, the British investigative media has been notably active in looking further into Lockerbie. Private Eye published a fascinating special issue on it some years ago.

[BDunnell]

What? How can releasing a man that your government still says is guilty not be seen as being weak?

Because this does not indicate a weakness when it comes to dealing with terrorists. It does not demonstrate a weakness in the law that could be deliberately exploited by others.



Maybe you need to explain your point better. The way I see your argument, and correct me where I'm wrong, is that Libya put this guy up as some sort of scapegoat in order to improve relations with the West. We all knew about this, but convicted the man anyway. Now he gets cancer, the Scots get a conscience, and let him go on "compassion" grounds.

Do I have that right? If so, why wouldn't the Scots just put on some sort of a "show trial" of an appeal? That way the would be releasing an innocent man, not a criminal.

Because there is no political will amongst the Scottish authorities, the British authorities nor the American authorities to rake the whole thing up again, despite the serious doubts about the safety of al-Megrahi's conviction. As I said, this is the element that is perhaps most detrimental to seeking justice, not the actual release, which has only served to make the whole thing worse for everybody. Now nobody, not even the Libyans, has ended up with a favourable outcome.



Like I said before, all you have to do now is come down with cancer, and you're a free man.

'All you have to do now is come down with cancer'? Do you seriously believe that other terrorists will be actively seeking to 'come down with cancer' so that in case of their imprisonment they can be let out and carry on committing terrorist acts?

[chuck34]

Because this does not indicate a weakness when it comes to dealing with terrorists. It does not demonstrate a weakness in the law that could be deliberately exploited by others.

Really? These are people (terrorists) that seek to exploit any move as a weakness. You don't think that they can twist this into a weakness, despite how YOU may feel about it? Come on, use some logic.


Because there is no political will amongst the Scottish authorities, the British authorities nor the American authorities to rake the whole thing up again, despite the serious doubts about the safety of al-Megrahi's conviction. As I said, this is the element that is perhaps most detrimental to seeking justice, not the actual release, which has only served to make the whole thing worse for everybody. Now nobody, not even the Libyans, has ended up with a favourable outcome.

The interviews I've seen with the victims' families says that there is more than enough will to have the right man in prision. I think you'll find most Americans want to have the right man in prision, not just "this man".


'All you have to do now is come down with cancer'? Do you seriously believe that other terrorists will be actively seeking to 'come down with cancer' so that in case of their imprisonment they can be let out and carry on committing terrorist acts?

Perhaps not actively seek it, but stranger things have happened. And I'm sure there are plenty of groups out there that would be willing to exploit such a situation. How hard do you think it would be to recruit a suicide bomber from someone that is going to die anyway? Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid, but a bit of paranoia is a good thing from time to time.

Now I'm worried I'm not worried enough. :-)

[Daniel]

Really? These are people (terrorists) that seek to exploit any move as a weakness. You don't think that they can twist this into a weakness, despite how YOU may feel about it? Come on, use some logic.

Oh for petes sake. The guy is ****ing dying. He's not exploiting a weakness. He's going to DIE! Cease to ****ing live. Cark it! Shuffle off this mortal coil! Do what the victims of the Lockerbie bombing did.

Did he give himself prostate cancer?

Get a flipping grip dude and see that this is no victory for terrorists or anything like that.

[chuck34]

Oh for petes sake. The guy is ****ing dying. He's not exploiting a weakness. He's going to DIE! Cease to ****ing live. Cark it! Shuffle off this mortal coil! Do what the victims of the Lockerbie bombing did.

Did he give himself prostate cancer?

Get a flipping grip dude and see that this is no victory for terrorists or anything like that.

Nice Python reference. A+ for that.

However he is not doing what the victims of the Lockerbie bombing did. They didn't get the chance to live out their final days saying goodbye to friends and family.

He did not give himself cancer. But he sure as hell did exploit the situation didn't he? Maybe this isn't an actual victory for the terrorists, but do you honestly think that that is how they see it?

[chuck34]

Political will?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541960,00.html?test=latestnews

[BDunnell]

Political will?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541960,00.html?test=latestnews

OK, so if the SNP administration is toppled, what then? None of the other parties that could take over will launch a re-investigation into the whole case. As I said, there is no political will to do anything, other than mouth platitudes about the decision to release al-Megrahi being wrong.

[Daniel]

Nice Python reference. A+ for that.

However he is not doing what the victims of the Lockerbie bombing did. They didn't get the chance to live out their final days saying goodbye to friends and family.

He did not give himself cancer. But he sure as hell did exploit the situation didn't he? Maybe this isn't an actual victory for the terrorists, but do you honestly think that that is how they see it?

Exploit the situation of having cancer? You're one sick puppy dog.

[chuck34]

Exploit the situation of having cancer? You're one sick puppy dog.

I'm not the one that secured a prision release simply for having cancer. Don't turn this around on me. If your are guilty of a crime, you go to jail for a prescibed amount of time. If you are innocent you don't go to prision. Having cancer should not come into question what-so-ever. But for some reason the Scottish system sees it differently.

Look at it another way. If he didn't have cancer, would he be in prison today or not. That is what should drive decisions like this. Cancer shouldn't be a factor, nor should any disease (except perhaps mental illnesses).

[BDunnell]

I'm not the one that secured a prision release simply for having cancer. Don't turn this around on me. If your are guilty of a crime, you go to jail for a prescibed amount of time. If you are innocent you don't go to prision. Having cancer should not come into question what-so-ever. But for some reason the Scottish system sees it differently.

Not just the Scottish system, I'm sure. And I'm not sure that 'simply for having cancer' is a fair way of putting it. You make cancer sound like a cold.



Look at it another way. If he didn't have cancer, would he be in prison today or not. That is what should drive decisions like this. Cancer shouldn't be a factor, nor should any disease (except perhaps mental illnesses).

He would surely still be in jail, but awaiting an appeal, which I'm certain would then have been (for the wrong reasons) rejected.

[Daniel]

I'm not the one that secured a prision release simply for having cancer. Don't turn this around on me. If your are guilty of a crime, you go to jail for a prescibed amount of time. If you are innocent you don't go to prision. Having cancer should not come into question what-so-ever. But for some reason the Scottish system sees it differently.

Look at it another way. If he didn't have cancer, would he be in prison today or not. That is what should drive decisions like this. Cancer shouldn't be a factor, nor should any disease (except perhaps mental illnesses).

Thing is chuck, he committed a crime in Scotland, he was tried under a Scottish law, he was imprisoned in Scotland and not he's been released by Scotland in accordance with the way they do things there.

In the US you do things differently and I respect that, but Scotland is different and you have to respect that. A lot of the problems in the last god knows how many decades have been caused by countries not respecting the way other countries do and that's not just aimed at the US by any means. If only people respected other people then a lot of the problems of today would not exist, I for example don't agree with what you say but I respect your right to say it.

[chuck34]

Not just the Scottish system, I'm sure. And I'm not sure that 'simply for having cancer' is a fair way of putting it. You make cancer sound like a cold.

I work off the law. The law says he's still guilty. He has not been aquited of the charges. If, as you say, it's so clear that he was not involved. Then why not clear his name? I don't buy this no political will stuff. Where does political will come from ... the people. I think the people of the World all want to see the perpetrators of this crime behind bars. No one has any particular attachment to THIS guy being behind bars.


He would surely still be in jail, but awaiting an appeal, which I'm certain would then have been (for the wrong reasons) rejected.

Then there's your answer as to why he should be in jail still. Well being or sickness should have no bearing on criminal convictions. How can you be so certain that his appeal would have been rejected for the wrong reasons? Perhaps this man is actually guilty. Or perhaps the legal system might actually work, and clear him.

You can't just start letting people out of jail because you think, or feel that they are innocent. The system will collapse under it's own weight at that point.

[chuck34]

Thing is chuck, he committed a crime in Scotland, he was tried under a Scottish law, he was imprisoned in Scotland and not he's been released by Scotland in accordance with the way they do things there.

In the US you do things differently and I respect that, but Scotland is different and you have to respect that. A lot of the problems in the last god knows how many decades have been caused by countries not respecting the way other countries do and that's not just aimed at the US by any means. If only people respected other people then a lot of the problems of today would not exist, I for example don't agree with what you say but I respect your right to say it.

This is the way they do things in Scotland? I have never heard such a thing? If criminals with terminal illnesses are always released under the Scottish system, then as you say I suppose I have to respect that.

If that is the case I toatally disagree with what they are doing. 100% horribly wrong. This is the worst president that can be set. But if this is normal under Scottish law, then I do have to respect it. But I don't have to like it.

And the other thing is that he just didn't murder Scots, he murdered Americans. So perhaps we should arrest him and try him here as well. I'm not sure why we didn't in the first place. Probably assumed that the Scots had done the job for us.

[Mark in Oshawa]

See...I can get what Daniel and Ben are driving at. Letting a man in prison who has a fatal illness go is a humane thing to do if he robbed a bank, or was in for fraud, or was just some petty criminal. This man was convicted of putting a bomb on a 747 and killing 271 people. 271. He was CONVICTED of it. I don't care if you are in Scotland or New Jersey, that is mass murder. Whether he may not have been guilty or not we will NEVER really know, but giving him back to Libya only makes sense if there is ample evidence that an appeal of his conviction had a very good chance of going through. We do NOT have this. Why is it every convicted criminal now seems to have advocates around believing he didn't do it? someone put that bomb on the airplane and Libya coughed up this mook only after a lot of international pressure and negotiation. His name was on the list of people wanted for questioning by the British authorities because there was evidence he was THERE. He wasn't some Libyan Quaddafi coughed up at random.

If he didn't do it, he must have had some involvement and until his role was clairfied, I still would see no reason to release him. You do not release people pending appeal who were involved in killing 271 INNOCENT people. I don't care where they came from, where he is from or the geopolitical BS around it.

This wasn't mail fraud or shoplifting he was in nick for, it was mass murder.

Victory for the terrorists? Judging by the happy faces in Tripoli when this guy got off the airplane, I would have to say some terrorist somewhere doesn't see this as compassion, he is thinking "those people in the West are so weak". We keep forgetting people who do this sort of thing are not wired like us...they see any sign of compassion towards them or Islam as a sign of weakness. They do not see it as we see it, which is being civilized and a sign of friendship. People who put bombs on planes for political reasons are NOT civilized and do not respect compassion, so letting this man go doesn't do anything but assuage the guilt of liberals who feel he may have been railroaded. I think he may have been too, but he was going to sit in jail with my medical system keeping him alive until we got to the bottom of it, NOT sitting in Tripoli getting cheers...

[chuck34]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242009/news/nationalnews/bernie_dying_in_jail_186175.htm

Well now Bernie Madoff has cancer. I'm gonna go on record right here saying that he didn't do it, he was framed by his scheming wife and kids, he only took the fall to save them.

Therefore, on compasionate grounds he should be let go.

Anyone see anything wrong with that?

(Just kidding by the way, he's guilty as hell. His wife and kids too)

[BTCC Fan#1]

Political will?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541960,00.html?test=latestnews
I maintain an extremely cynical suspicion that Brown was so careful to emphasise this was 'a decision for the Scottish Government' so Labour in Scotland could come out and say that if they'd been in power this would not have happened.. I understand Labour are already planning on fighting the upcoming by-election in Glasgow on a 'The SNP are weak on law and order' platform.

[BDunnell]

I work off the law. The law says he's still guilty. He has not been aquited of the charges. If, as you say, it's so clear that he was not involved. Then why not clear his name? I don't buy this no political will stuff. Where does political will come from ... the people. I think the people of the World all want to see the perpetrators of this crime behind bars. No one has any particular attachment to THIS guy being behind bars.

I am very surprised indeed that you don't understand why I feel there was/is no political will to look into the whole thing again - I have explained it quite clearly. By the end of the 1990s, the UK and other countries wanted to be able to trade with Libya. Therefore it was deemed desirable to make efforts to clear certain matters up, such as Lockerbie and the killing of Yvonne Blakelock. Certain 'uncomfortable' matters relating to these cases, such as elements of the evidence produced, were quite conveniently swept under the carpet. The West became friendly with Libya once again and we are now trading quite happily. Politicians in all sorts of countries have no wish to upset this.



Then there's your answer as to why he should be in jail still. Well being or sickness should have no bearing on criminal convictions. How can you be so certain that his appeal would have been rejected for the wrong reasons? Perhaps this man is actually guilty. Or perhaps the legal system might actually work, and clear him.

You can't just start letting people out of jail because you think, or feel that they are innocent. The system will collapse under it's own weight at that point.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that he should have been released because he might be innocent? Nowhere. On the contrary, I am in two minds about whether the decision was right or wrong. On balance, it would clearly be preferable if he were still in jail awaiting an appeal, not that any appeal would have ever released him, even if he hadn't committed the crime.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I maintain an extremely cynical suspicion that Brown was so careful to emphasise this was 'a decision for the Scottish Government' so Labour in Scotland could come out and say that if they'd been in power this would not have happened.. I understand Labour are already planning on fighting the upcoming by-election in Glasgow on a 'The SNP are weak on law and order' platform.

It is a head scratcher for sure. Labour usually advocates this sort of mercy for inmates....but even they see the point in keeping someone behind bars who MAY have been involved in killing 271 people and was convicted of it in any case.

[BDunnell]

I maintain an extremely cynical suspicion that Brown was so careful to emphasise this was 'a decision for the Scottish Government' so Labour in Scotland could come out and say that if they'd been in power this would not have happened.. I understand Labour are already planning on fighting the upcoming by-election in Glasgow on a 'The SNP are weak on law and order' platform.

Both they and the Lib Dems have done exactly the same thing. And both have totally over-simplified a very complex situation in which there are few rights or wrongs.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am very surprised indeed that you don't understand why I feel there was/is no political will to look into the whole thing again - I have explained it quite clearly. By the end of the 1990s, the UK and other countries wanted to be able to trade with Libya. Therefore it was deemed desirable to make efforts to clear certain matters up, such as Lockerbie and the killing of Yvonne Blakelock. Certain 'uncomfortable' matters relating to these cases, such as elements of the evidence produced, were quite conveniently swept under the carpet. The West became friendly with Libya once again and we are now trading quite happily. Politicians in all sorts of countries have no wish to upset this.
.

This is what irritates me Ben. Trade with Libya? That is oil.....and you guys in Europe always accuse the Americans of dealing with the devil for oil and starting wars over it, yet the UK is desparate for this trade they would just look the other way on the facts of cases like Blakelock and the Lockerbie bombing? I would say your gov't''s are every bit as cynical and callous as the Yanks.

Except I wont, and I suspect there is much we don't know, but I still don't grasp what the Scot's were thinking onthis one.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242009/news/nationalnews/bernie_dying_in_jail_186175.htm

Well now Bernie Madoff has cancer. I'm gonna go on record right here saying that he didn't do it, he was framed by his scheming wife and kids, he only took the fall to save them.

Therefore, on compasionate grounds he should be let go.

Anyone see anything wrong with that?

(Just kidding by the way, he's guilty as hell. His wife and kids too)

Oh right now there is some one out there advocating Bernie should be allowed to die with his family. In Scotland, this jerk would be walking with that idiot justice minister in charge.

Most Scots I suspect are NOT happy with this mess. Then there are people like Daniel who like to argue that compassion for a killer makes us better than him. Leaving his sorry carcass in jail makes us better than him too...

[BTCC Fan#1]

Both they and the Lib Dems have done exactly the same thing. And both have totally over-simplified a very complex situation in which there are few rights or wrongs.
I was pretty unimpressed with what the usually pretty astute Nick Clegg had to say on the matter this morning, the old adage 'if you've got nothing useful to say don't say it at all' did spring to mind..

[BDunnell]

See...I can get what Daniel and Ben are driving at. Letting a man in prison who has a fatal illness go is a humane thing to do if he robbed a bank, or was in for fraud, or was just some petty criminal. This man was convicted of putting a bomb on a 747 and killing 271 people. 271. He was CONVICTED of it. I don't care if you are in Scotland or New Jersey, that is mass murder. Whether he may not have been guilty or not we will NEVER really know, but giving him back to Libya only makes sense if there is ample evidence that an appeal of his conviction had a very good chance of going through. We do NOT have this. Why is it every convicted criminal now seems to have advocates around believing he didn't do it? someone put that bomb on the airplane and Libya coughed up this mook only after a lot of international pressure and negotiation. His name was on the list of people wanted for questioning by the British authorities because there was evidence he was THERE. He wasn't some Libyan Quaddafi coughed up at random.

If he didn't do it, he must have had some involvement and until his role was clairfied, I still would see no reason to release him. You do not release people pending appeal who were involved in killing 271 INNOCENT people. I don't care where they came from, where he is from or the geopolitical BS around it.

This wasn't mail fraud or shoplifting he was in nick for, it was mass murder.

Victory for the terrorists? Judging by the happy faces in Tripoli when this guy got off the airplane, I would have to say some terrorist somewhere doesn't see this as compassion, he is thinking "those people in the West are so weak". We keep forgetting people who do this sort of thing are not wired like us...they see any sign of compassion towards them or Islam as a sign of weakness. They do not see it as we see it, which is being civilized and a sign of friendship. People who put bombs on planes for political reasons are NOT civilized and do not respect compassion, so letting this man go doesn't do anything but assuage the guilt of liberals who feel he may have been railroaded. I think he may have been too, but he was going to sit in jail with my medical system keeping him alive until we got to the bottom of it, NOT sitting in Tripoli getting cheers...

I don't think it assuages anyone's guilt. This is not an issue about which you can place people into the usual camps - 'liberals' think one thing, 'right-wingers' another - as much as you may like to do so. One thing on which I am clear is that I for one, not being beset by terrorist-related paranoia, do not feel in any way endangered by his release. I am, however, not sure that it was the right thing to do, just as I was dead against the release of Ronnie Biggs on compassionate grounds.

[chuck34]

I am very surprised indeed that you don't understand why I feel there was/is no political will to look into the whole thing again - I have explained it quite clearly. By the end of the 1990s, the UK and other countries wanted to be able to trade with Libya. Therefore it was deemed desirable to make efforts to clear certain matters up, such as Lockerbie and the killing of Yvonne Blakelock. Certain 'uncomfortable' matters relating to these cases, such as elements of the evidence produced, were quite conveniently swept under the carpet. The West became friendly with Libya once again and we are now trading quite happily. Politicians in all sorts of countries have no wish to upset this.

You're right I don't understand your basis of your no political will stance. The US and UK were putting pressure on Libya to "clean up their act" in order to start trading. It was the US and UK that were dictating terms to Libya in this whole deal. Therefore we were in a position to ask for a free and fair trial of the "real" perpetrators. We still have that upper-hand. Plus the moral high ground to demand the actual terrorist(s) be tried in a court of law. How would demanding such a thing (especially if this guy is cleared) change anything with our current relationship with Libya?


Again, you are putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that he should have been released because he might be innocent? Nowhere. On the contrary, I am in two minds about whether the decision was right or wrong. On balance, it would clearly be preferable if he were still in jail awaiting an appeal, not that any appeal would have ever released him, even if he hadn't committed the crime.

Now I'm really confused. It sure seems to me that you have been taking the position that he was probably innocent anyway, so releasing him for "compassion" makes sence. See my earlier post where I asked for clarification of your position. I wasn't corrected so I assumed my characterization of your position was correct. If it's not, please correct me.

[chuck34]

Oh right now there is some one out there advocating Bernie should be allowed to die with his family. In Scotland, this jerk would be walking with that idiot justice minister in charge.

Most Scots I suspect are NOT happy with this mess. Then there are people like Daniel who like to argue that compassion for a killer makes us better than him. Leaving his sorry carcass in jail makes us better than him too...

As I said earlier, the compassionate thing to do would be to give this guy care, ease his suffering, and allow his family to visit him in jail. That is the compassionate, yet rational response when a convicted mass murderer becomes termanally ill in prision.

And shows MUCH more compassion than he did to his victims.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think it assuages anyone's guilt. This is not an issue about which you can place people into the usual camps - 'liberals' think one thing, 'right-wingers' another - as much as you may like to do so. One thing on which I am clear is that I for one, not being beset by terrorist-related paranoia, do not feel in any way endangered by his release. I am, however, not sure that it was the right thing to do, just as I was dead against the release of Ronnie Biggs on compassionate grounds.

I don't know if it is NOT a libreal vs conservative thing Ben. You though have always crossed into conservative territory not even realizing you are there on occasion tho. Most libreals do argue this on compassion. Almost every right wing conservative on this board thinks tho this is wrong (the rest haven't read it) so I would have to say you are the only trail blazer across the divide of right/left.

I think the only thing on you I disagree is the sense that this means nothing as far as emboldening terrorists. I have to point out once again that it isnt paranoia, just read some of the statements from people like Bin Laden. They consider Westerners weak, too soft, and not willing to defend their way of life. Letting this guy go feeds that mantra with people like Bin Laden. It isn't Islam we are fighting, it is fundamentalist terrorist Islam, and any sense they get that we are soft or overly compassionate is NOT seen by them as a positive thing for us, for they don't give or understand compassion. People who put bombs on 747's see this as a victory for them....You may not set it that way, but it isn't you that does the irrational act of killing people for religious purity or political goals....

[BDunnell]

You're right I don't understand your basis of your no political will stance. The US and UK were putting pressure on Libya to "clean up their act" in order to start trading. It was the US and UK that were dictating terms to Libya in this whole deal. Therefore we were in a position to ask for a free and fair trial of the "real" perpetrators. We still have that upper-hand. Plus the moral high ground to demand the actual terrorist(s) be tried in a court of law. How would demanding such a thing (especially if this guy is cleared) change anything with our current relationship with Libya?

It seemed quite clear to several observers at the time that al-Megrahi was a convenient scapegoat. The factual doubts about his conviction would seem to encourage this view. And I can think of no situation in which having the moral upper hand has ever been of benefit, especially where matters relating to natural resources and arms sales are concerned. The UK ought to have just such an upper hand in relation to Saudi Arabia, yet does any UK government ever make any adverse comment on human rights there? No. The matter is ignored. Libya now seems to be 'off-limits' when it comes to criticism too. That heard about the reception al-Megrahi received in Tripoli was decidedly mild.



Now I'm really confused. It sure seems to me that you have been taking the position that he was probably innocent anyway, so releasing him for "compassion" makes sence. See my earlier post where I asked for clarification of your position. I wasn't corrected so I assumed my characterization of your position was correct. If it's not, please correct me.

Not at all, because I do not believe that 'he might have been innocent' is sufficient to allow a release under any circumstances. It would be a happy coincidence if he were actually innocent. In truth, I don't know quite where I stand, except to say that the end result is a mess. There has been no chance for an appeal, and thus an opportunity (maybe, in an ideal situation) to find out whether the doubts about the original conviction were correct; and justice has been served to no-one. I suppose I don't feel that his release does any actual harm, because, in all probability, justice would not have been served had the appeal gone through (for the reasons I've given), but on the other hand I can well understand why his release is viewed by some as being the wrong course of action.

[BDunnell]

I don't know if it is NOT a libreal vs conservative thing Ben. You though have always crossed into conservative territory not even realizing you are there on occasion tho.

I am actually quite well aware of it, though I will never vote Conservative in my life. In fact, most people have views that vary similarly, while believing themselves to be one thing rather than the other.

[Roamy]

Give up Mark, Dunnell won't be around until he gets is own terrorist bomb and he probably lives in the hills with no more population that 30 and really not a terrorist target. Most liberals talk this compassionate sh!t but are quick to change when someone sends them the head of their loved one.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fousto..read what the man said. He said the guy should have been KEPT in jail.


There is hope....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am actually quite well aware of it, though I will never vote Conservative in my life. In fact, most people have views that vary similarly, while believing themselves to be one thing rather than the other.

Come to the dark side Ben....Most liberals never admit to anything that even smacks of conservatism. I think I have figured out over the years you have a functioning brain and can reason things. If you are not going to be a conservative, I would wager you are turning more into a libertarian, which is more rational than a lot of "liberal" though these days.....

Once upon a time, being a libreal meant you were a classical liberal, which is more or less what a lot of libertarians are today.....now it just means of always thinking with your heart instead of your head. Letting feelings run roughshod over logic. You my friend didn't do that on this one......

[chuck34]

It seemed quite clear to several observers at the time that al-Megrahi was a convenient scapegoat. The factual doubts about his conviction would seem to encourage this view.


Not at all, because I do not believe that 'he might have been innocent' is sufficient to allow a release under any circumstances.

Can you see my confusion now? Sometimes you seem to say that al-Megrahi was a convenient scapegoat. But then say that's not sufficient to allow his release.

I don't understand how you can advocate his release unless you think he was a scapegoat. At least then I can see some reason, not that I agree. But to say he's not a scapegoat and argue for his release makes no sence to me at all. And even if you think he was a scapegoat, I'm not sure why you would want his release, without clearing his name.

Ok now I've confused myself. :-)

[Daniel]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242009/news/nationalnews/bernie_dying_in_jail_186175.htm

Well now Bernie Madoff has cancer. I'm gonna go on record right here saying that he didn't do it, he was framed by his scheming wife and kids, he only took the fall to save them.

Therefore, on compasionate grounds he should be let go.

Anyone see anything wrong with that?

(Just kidding by the way, he's guilty as hell. His wife and kids too)

You know something funny? I think Bernie should rot in jail, just as I felt Biggs should have as well.

[BDunnell]

Can you see my confusion now? Sometimes you seem to say that al-Megrahi was a convenient scapegoat. But then say that's not sufficient to allow his release.

I don't understand how you can advocate his release unless you think he was a scapegoat. At least then I can see some reason, not that I agree. But to say he's not a scapegoat and argue for his release makes no sence to me at all. And even if you think he was a scapegoat, I'm not sure why you would want his release, without clearing his name.

Ok now I've confused myself. :-)

Yes, I do believe he was a convenient scapegoat, and that he would never have been released for the political/diplomatic reasons I gave. However, it would be foolish to argue that anyone should be released prior to proper investigation, and I don't remember saying that. I might be wrong, and he might have ended up being released, or evidence might have been presented that left no-one in any reasonable doubt as to his guilt. As yet, this hasn't happened. That it never will be, in all likelihood, is very depressing. There remain serious questions to be answered.

[Daniel]

As I said earlier, the compassionate thing to do would be to give this guy care, ease his suffering, and allow his family to visit him in jail. That is the compassionate, yet rational response when a convicted mass murderer becomes termanally ill in prision.

And shows MUCH more compassion than he did to his victims.

The option was given for him to spend his last few days elsewhere in Scotland but it was decided that the security implications for all involved were too great. At the end of it all he's hardly a dangerous man now is he?

[BDunnell]

The option was given for him to spend his last few days elsewhere in Scotland but it was decided that the security implications for all involved were too great. At the end of it all he's hardly a dangerous man now is he?

Probably no more or less so than Ronnie Biggs.

[Daniel]

Probably no more or less so than Ronnie Biggs.
Perhaps, but I think the fact that Biggs taunted the British authorities and was absolutely 100% guilty changes things.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, I do believe he was a convenient scapegoat, and that he would never have been released for the political/diplomatic reasons I gave. However, it would be foolish to argue that anyone should be released prior to proper investigation, and I don't remember saying that. I might be wrong, and he might have ended up being released, or evidence might have been presented that left no-one in any reasonable doubt as to his guilt. As yet, this hasn't happened. That it never will be, in all likelihood, is very depressing. There remain serious questions to be answered.

There are questions that need to be answered, but we wont get them answered because Libya will only give us the information they want to give us. Quaddafi at that time was still mad at the US for Reagan's using F111's to rearrange his living room furniture and killing one of his childern. Libya at that time was a state sponsor of terrorists, had attacked US Navy planes in the Med and was up to his ears in a lot of bad stuff. THat said, when the Libyans in question put that bomb on that Pan Am flight, that really was an act of war and no one could prove it. Libya will NEVER now show any evidence of any involvement in any of this because they now want to play nice with the west, and losing face with the west is a bad thing to do in the Arab world.

This man that Scotland released was the only hope of getting more information and another inquiry or trial on things. The Scot's dropped the ball if they wanted the truth to come out if this man is "innocent" as some people believe.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The option was given for him to spend his last few days elsewhere in Scotland but it was decided that the security implications for all involved were too great. At the end of it all he's hardly a dangerous man now is he?

Daniel, You miss the point. He was convicted. On a crime with 271 dead, you don't allow people out to await appeal, and you don't send him home when he has cancer to prove you are "Better". THAT is just stupidity....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Perhaps, but I think the fact that Biggs taunted the British authorities and was absolutely 100% guilty changes things.

Bigg's didn't put a bomb on an airplane either......

It seems you don't seem to grasp that it isn't the level of guilt or the taunting that deterimines the fate, it is the fact that people who put bombs on airplanes either allegedly or are convicted of it should never walk free unless you absolutely prove the were NOT guilty. THAT hasn't happened here....so toss the compassion crap out the window. If you wont give it to Biggs, don't give to this man either.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Now that I read some of the posts....I realize...Eki...you are quiet on the subject? Where is your passionate defense of this and how it is all George W. Bush's fault this man was in jail?

[Daniel]

Now that I read some of the posts....I realize...Eki...you are quiet on the subject? Where is your passionate defense of this and how it is all George W. Bush's fault this man was in jail?
Wtf's your problem Foustina? First you post all your crap and now you take over Mark in O's PC? :p

[Daniel]

Daniel, You miss the point. He was convicted. On a crime with 271 dead, you don't allow people out to await appeal, and you don't send him home when he has cancer to prove you are "Better". THAT is just stupidity....

I simply don't subscribe to the eye for an eye argument :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

I simply don't subscribe to the eye for an eye argument :)
Daniel...this isn't an eye for an eye. This is keeping a man who KILLED, MURDERED, DISMEMBERMED, and MUTILATED 271 people by putting a bomb on an airplane. The justice system found him guilty of this. Those people on that airplane and those killed on the ground do NOT deserve to be forgotten about by the justice system of Scotland so people like yourself can feel good about being compassionate.

I am all for people being civilized and being compassionate but not to people convicted being part of a plot to kill so many people in such a callous manner. The people on that airplane were likely alive as it plunged towards the earth. Where was the compassion they received? Did they get to say good-bye to their loved ones? You can be compassionate and treat this man with respect as a prisoner in your system, and give him medical treatment and fly his family up to see him. THAT is compassionate. Sending him to Libya to a hero's welcome wasn't compassion, it was stupidity. The Scottish justice system just spit in the eye of the families that suffered. You spend WAY too much time worrying about this man, and not enough on people that suffered a hell of a lot more.

THat isn't eye for an eye punishment keeping him in jail. Killing him in a callous manner would have been. Life in prison with proper care for his cancer is what is civilized....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Wtf's your problem Foustina? First you post all your crap and now you take over Mark in O's PC? :p

Fousto didn't get in my computer. On this one, I am leaning towards his point of view....

[Daniel]

Daniel...this isn't an eye for an eye. This is keeping a man who KILLED, MURDERED, DISMEMBERMED, and MUTILATED 271 people by putting a bomb on an airplane. The justice system found him guilty of this. Those people on that airplane and those killed on the ground do NOT deserve to be forgotten about by the justice system of Scotland so people like yourself can feel good about being compassionate.

I am all for people being civilized and being compassionate but not to people convicted being part of a plot to kill so many people in such a callous manner. The people on that airplane were likely alive as it plunged towards the earth. Where was the compassion they received? Did they get to say good-bye to their loved ones? You can be compassionate and treat this man with respect as a prisoner in your system, and give him medical treatment and fly his family up to see him. THAT is compassionate. Sending him to Libya to a hero's welcome wasn't compassion, it was stupidity. The Scottish justice system just spit in the eye of the families that suffered. You spend WAY too much time worrying about this man, and not enough on people that suffered a hell of a lot more.

THat isn't eye for an eye punishment keeping him in jail. Killing him in a callous manner would have been. Life in prison with proper care for his cancer is what is civilized....
I respect your opinion Mark, but I disagree. As I said letting him go home shows that although he may (I say may because his guilt is not 100% proven) not have shown compassion towards the people on the plane that we do.

[Daniel]

Fousto didn't get in my computer. On this one, I am leaning towards his point of view....
I'm not sure I believe you ;) Bringing Eki into an argument that he's not involved himself in is classic Foustina behaviour ;)

[BDunnell]

Perhaps, but I think the fact that Biggs taunted the British authorities and was absolutely 100% guilty changes things.

But so was al-Megrahi, as far as the original court was concerned, and pending the outcome of an appeal. In fact there was no difference between them.

[Daniel]

Bigg's didn't put a bomb on an airplane either......

It seems you don't seem to grasp that it isn't the level of guilt or the taunting that deterimines the fate, it is the fact that people who put bombs on airplanes either allegedly or are convicted of it should never walk free unless you absolutely prove the were NOT guilty. THAT hasn't happened here....so toss the compassion crap out the window. If you wont give it to Biggs, don't give to this man either.

I think throughout this matter al-Megrahi seems to have conducted himself in a dignified manner and has shown respect for the systems in place here. Biggs didn't do this and paraded himself around for years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Biggs

Read this and tell me that this man hasn't conducted himself in a more dignified manner than Biggs....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8212910.stm

[BDunnell]

This man that Scotland released was the only hope of getting more information and another inquiry or trial on things. The Scot's dropped the ball if they wanted the truth to come out if this man is "innocent" as some people believe.

Or, at least, not acting alone. How could he have been acting alone? It is quite amazing that only one person has ever faced trial.

The other problem, as I think I wrote earlier, is that some of the unanswered questions relate to matters that could be embarrassing for others - like whether the bomb actually entered the airline system at Heathrow. There is good evidence to suggest that it might have.

[Daniel]

Or, at least, not acting alone. How could he have been acting alone? It is quite amazing that only one person has ever faced trial.

The other problem, as I think I wrote earlier, is that some of the unanswered questions relate to matters that could be embarrassing for others - like whether the bomb actually entered the airline system at Heathrow. There is good evidence to suggest that it might have.
That's why so many family members of the dead are not bothered. All they want is the truth and to know how such a device could get onto a plane. If he wasn't acting alone or in fact had no involvement then the last 20 years have just been a coverup to give the families false closure.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I respect your opinion Mark, but I disagree. As I said letting him go home shows that although he may (I say may because his guilt is not 100% proven) not have shown compassion towards the people on the plane that we do.

It was proven in a court of law. Until his appeal or an inquiry says otherwise, he stays in jail. If you cant grasp that, then you are merely admitting that the justice system of the UK isn't to be trusted and you might as well consider any prisoner awaiting appeal to be automatically innocent.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's why so many family members of the dead are not bothered. All they want is the truth and to know how such a device could get onto a plane. If he wasn't acting alone or in fact had no involvement then the last 20 years have just been a coverup to give the families false closure.

How many? The feeling I have gotten is not many are not bothered. They are terribly bothered that no one seems to grasp THEY are the victims, and not this man who you feel all this compassion for.

As for False closure? I doubt highly he didn't have something to do with this. Libya was petitioned for years for this man to be extradited. I am sure Scotland Yard didn't pick his name out of the Tripoli phone book. False closure is still better than NO closure, which is what we have now....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think throughout this matter al-Megrahi seems to have conducted himself in a dignified manner and has shown respect for the systems in place here. Biggs didn't do this and paraded himself around for years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Biggs

Read this and tell me that this man hasn't conducted himself in a more dignified manner than Biggs....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8212910.stm

I don't care what kind of jerk Biggs is. The point is he wasn't convicted of KILLING 271 people. If you judge prisoners by their attutude, Iam sure there are people convicted of car theft you would keep in jail for years.

This isn't about the prisoner in question Daniel, it is about Justice. If the justice system of a civlized nation cannot grasp that the victims of the crime and their families would be offended and victimized once again, then it really needs to be re evaluated.

Ben's point on it is inconceivable that he acted alone is a good one, but he may well have. I doubt it, but we wont find out by just sending him home and hoping Libya admits to their role in this. THat is dreaming. You do not show a dicatorship such as Libya that you wont tolerate their involvement in acts of terrorism by petitioning them for years to cough up the men responsible, trying one and then letting him go 8 years later on compassionate grounds. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm not sure I believe you ;) Bringing Eki into an argument that he's not involved himself in is classic Foustina behaviour ;)

Daniel..I miss Eki's take on this. This is right in his wheelhouse. A dictatorship confronting a western democracy. He usually finds some moral equivalency arguement to justify the barbarism and eventually, it is all Dubya's fault. It is amusing....

[Daniel]

It was proven in a court of law. Until his appeal or an inquiry says otherwise, he stays in jail. If you cant grasp that, then you are merely admitting that the justice system of the UK isn't to be trusted and you might as well consider any prisoner awaiting appeal to be automatically innocent.
I think you're reading the wrong part of my post.

[Daniel]

How many? The feeling I have gotten is not many are not bothered. They are terribly bothered that no one seems to grasp THEY are the victims, and not this man who you feel all this compassion for.

As for False closure? I doubt highly he didn't have something to do with this. Libya was petitioned for years for this man to be extradited. I am sure Scotland Yard didn't pick his name out of the Tripoli phone book. False closure is still better than NO closure, which is what we have now....
I just think that if someone is dying we should allow them time with their family. If not they may as well have just killed him there and then.

[chuck34]

Or, at least, not acting alone. How could he have been acting alone? It is quite amazing that only one person has ever faced trial.

The other problem, as I think I wrote earlier, is that some of the unanswered questions relate to matters that could be embarrassing for others - like whether the bomb actually entered the airline system at Heathrow. There is good evidence to suggest that it might have.

I agree with you on this one. But how does releasing a guilty man get us one step closer to answering these questions?

[chuck34]

I just think that if someone is dying we should allow them time with their family. If not they may as well have just killed him there and then.

So everyone that has a terminal illness should be let out of prision? Or aparently we should do away with "life in prision" sentences and just shoot 'em all? What sence does that make? You can't just let convicted people out of jail because you feel like it. Talk about weakness!

[BDunnell]

How many? The feeling I have gotten is not many are not bothered. They are terribly bothered that no one seems to grasp THEY are the victims, and not this man who you feel all this compassion for.

Well, some hold that view - those who seem to have taken, maybe, more time to look into the facts themselves.



As for False closure? I doubt highly he didn't have something to do with this. Libya was petitioned for years for this man to be extradited. I am sure Scotland Yard didn't pick his name out of the Tripoli phone book. False closure is still better than NO closure, which is what we have now....

I don't agree with that. For those family members who do not believe that justice was done first time around, the fact that they do not consider themselves to have reached proper closure on the matter must in itself be deeply painful. After all, they feel let down by the justice system.

[BDunnell]

I agree with you on this one. But how does releasing a guilty man get us one step closer to answering these questions?

It doesn't, at all. This is why I said that the whole affair, whether or not one thinks he should have been released on compassionate grounds, has ended with a deeply unsatisfactory outcome for all concerned.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just think that if someone is dying we should allow them time with their family. If not they may as well have just killed him there and then.

Daniel. EVERYONE Dies. Why put anyone in prison at all? 8 years is NOT enough time in prison for killing 271 people. Sorry, no compassion for a convicted mass murderer. I am kind of funny that way....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, some hold that view - those who seem to have taken, maybe, more time to look into the facts themselves.



I don't agree with that. For those family members who do not believe that justice was done first time around, the fact that they do not consider themselves to have reached proper closure on the matter must in itself be deeply painful. After all, they feel let down by the justice system.

Letting this man go wouldn't affirm to me any faith in the justice system.

The people who lost family in this may feel he wasn't acting alone and may know lots of facts but no one that had family on that plane or family in those houses flattened by the wreckage were advocating compassion for this man.

It is only people like Daniel who think somehow it is noble they did this dying man a favour..the poor chap...dying of cancer...we must let him see his family....what a load of rubbish. Daniel has yet to say anything that justifies any of this to me ifI had family on that plane. Regardless of whether there was other people involved or not, this man was convicted of the crime. HE was involved. As I said, he wasn't picked at random out of the Tripoli phone book. Sorry, I don't care how dignified he may have been in jail or in his calls for appeal. He stays in jail, and you can fly his family in to assauge your hurt feelings that he may not see his family again. A lot of people one day didn't see their families again after a bomb blew them out of the sky....

[Mark in Oshawa]

The right thing to do. Two wrongs don't make a right and this was an opportunity for Scotland to show that they're better than the terrorists and they have done well.

I go back to this point Daniel. You think this guy is totally innocent. Never mind the justice system you pay taxes to convicted him. Never mind his trial was a lot more fair than any trial you would get in Tripoli. You only see this through what he is going through, as if he is the only victim..

I shake my head in frustration....that is almost an Eki like leap of logic to ignore the families who lost loved ones that day. If he is a scapegoat, he can still die in prison because we have no knowledege for sure what his role was.....but he obviously was part of the plot somehow... Guilty by association maybe? Still doesn't excuse you using this arguement of compassion for a man who was involved in the deaths of 271 victims.

[GridGirl]

This is taking the thread slightly off topic but for those of you that seem to have an eye for an eye view of punnishment where are you going to draw the line? What about innocent people that have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?What about British troops killed by friendly fire from US troops? Can the British Army shoot down a few US planes to make it all equal? There cones a point when you just have to rise above this mentality because no punnishment will avenge or really give justice for one killing let alone 271.

Daniel never said al-Meghari was innocent just that there were doubts on his conviction. There is nothing wrong with showing compassion. If fact it takes a bigger and better person to show compassion in my opinion.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This is taking the thread slightly off topic but for those of you that seem to have an eye for an eye view of punnishment where are you going to draw the line? What about innocent people that have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?What about British troops killed by friendly fire from US troops? Can the British Army shoot down a few US planes to make it all equal? There cones a point when you just have to rise above this mentality because no punnishment will avenge or really give justice for one killing let alone 271.

Daniel never said al-Meghari was innocent just that there were doubts on his conviction. There is nothing wrong with showing compassion. If fact it takes a bigger and better person to show compassion in my opinion.

Grid Girl, there is a difference. Moral equalvalency is an argument that you and Daniel I am sure relish but here is the difference:

Killing people by putting a bomb in the hold of a 747 of a nation that is NOT at war with you, has no military purpose nor anything but a political statement. It will not win a war, it will not gain you anything but the satisfaction that you killed 271 Western imperialist capitalist lackeys.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan were ugly, messy, and often contentious. You will argue likely neither should have happened, and that is fine, but the point is a sovreign nation and its troops in the case of the UK, the US or anyone else invading another nation is held and holds its own troops (in the case of NATO nations) to the rules of conduct in wars, the Geneva Conventions. Purposely targeting civilians is against the Geneva conventions, and no military man in the UK, the US or the rest of NATO was ever given orders to purposely target truly innocent civilians, nor were they told to ever operate as a genocidal agent. Collaterial casualities of civiliians are heinous and awful, and war is awful, but your PM didn't tell the British Army to kill everyone and let god sort them out. The man who put that bomb on THAT airplane DID. THAT is the difference....

Daniel does think the man was innocent. He has all but said so. The fact the justice system you both pay taxes to found this man guilty should worry you if you think he is innocent, but until an appeal is done, or an inquiry is held, you don't relase the man, even if he has Cancer. Sorry....he likely was involved into this mess up to his neck. I said it before, he wans't some bloke having a pint in London who just happened to have a Libyan passport and he wasn't picked out of the Tripoli phone book at random. He had a role in this....we just don't the whole story. Compassion for him is giving him medical care and flying his family into see him, not releasing him entirely...that's lunacy

[edv]

Umm, Libya paid $2.7 Billion to the victims.
That's $10 Million per family.
That's called blood money.
Any family that accepted the money should remain silent about this whole deal.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Umm, Libya paid $2.7 Billion to the victims.
That's $10 Million per family.
That's called blood money.
Any family that accepted the money should remain silent about this whole deal.

Good point, but we don't know how many took the money. I do know that it says a lot about Libya that they paid this money out and yet welcome this guy home like the conquering hero. It doesn't say innocent to me either.....

[BDunnell]

It is only people like Daniel who think somehow it is noble they did this dying man a favour..the poor chap...dying of cancer...we must let him see his family....what a load of rubbish. Daniel has yet to say anything that justifies any of this to me ifI had family on that plane.

Why should it make any difference whether or not you had family on the aircraft?

[BDunnell]

Good point, but we don't know how many took the money. I do know that it says a lot about Libya that they paid this money out and yet welcome this guy home like the conquering hero. It doesn't say innocent to me either.....

Well, it could very easily be a reaction to one of their citizens being released after being unjustly locked up. I wouldn't seek to second-guess what the emotions that lay behind it were.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Why should it make any difference whether or not you had family on the aircraft?

We can argue about this in the abstract, If I had a relative on board the plane I think it would be much more painful and personal.

We wont know and god willing we wont know what that is like.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, it could very easily be a reaction to one of their citizens being released after being unjustly locked up. I wouldn't seek to second-guess what the emotions that lay behind it were.

Ben...think about it. If an American citizen was convicted in the UK of a VERY heinous crime, but there was some doubt in the eyes of some he was innocent, you think the Americans would hold a hero's welcome for him? Not likely....some might greet him but it would not be what we saw on the news.

No...this guy is portrayed as some sort of hero in Libya, as if they did nothing wrong and were not complicit, yet as Edv pointed out, Libya paid out a lot of money .....

Someone put that bomb on the plane. this man was serving the sentence either on their behalf or was part of it. Releasing him, even for compassionate reasons says to the Libyans " forget it....we just can be bothered"

If I am a family member that says to me it doesn't matter no more.....

[BDunnell]

Someone put that bomb on the plane. this man was serving the sentence either on their behalf or was part of it.

'Serving the sentence on their behalf'? What sort of a justification for locking someone up is that?

[Daniel]

We can argue about this in the abstract, If I had a relative on board the plane I think it would be much more painful and personal.

We wont know and god willing we wont know what that is like.

Not wanting to sound callous but perhaps you shouldn't watch it then?

[chuck34]

This is taking the thread slightly off topic but for those of you that seem to have an eye for an eye view of punnishment where are you going to draw the line? What about innocent people that have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?What about British troops killed by friendly fire from US troops? Can the British Army shoot down a few US planes to make it all equal? There cones a point when you just have to rise above this mentality because no punnishment will avenge or really give justice for one killing let alone 271.

Daniel never said al-Meghari was innocent just that there were doubts on his conviction. There is nothing wrong with showing compassion. If fact it takes a bigger and better person to show compassion in my opinion.

This isn't an eye for an eye thing. This is a rule of law thing. If it was an eye for an eye deal, we would have put a bomb on the plane taking him home.

You're right there is nothing wrong with showing comassion. But this is not compassion.

[Mark in Oshawa]

'Serving the sentence on their behalf'? What sort of a justification for locking someone up is that?
That isn't my justification, it is Libya's who served this man up. Still doesn't change the fact he was wanted by the UK for this crime. HE isn't the ring leader perhaps but he was involved. He is complicit and was found guilty ina court of law. If that isn't good enough, then toss out the justice system and let anarchy reign.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Not wanting to sound callous but perhaps you shouldn't watch it then?

Watch what Daniel? The film of this man getting a hero's welcome? You saying the families of the victim's don't deserve to watch this and be angry? You saying they have no right to watch tv? I saw it on the news, am I not allowed to be offended?

Hey everyone, Daniel is now going to judge which emotions are real.....

[BDunnell]

That isn't my justification, it is Libya's who served this man up. Still doesn't change the fact he was wanted by the UK for this crime. HE isn't the ring leader perhaps but he was involved. He is complicit and was found guilty ina court of law. If that isn't good enough, then toss out the justice system and let anarchy reign.

So every occasion on which a miscarriage of justice is committed and then reversed is a case of 'letting anarchy reign'? Lots of people are wrongly found guilty by courts in democratic countries the world over every year.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This isn't an eye for an eye thing. This is a rule of law thing. If it was an eye for an eye deal, we would have put a bomb on the plane taking him home.

You're right there is nothing wrong with showing comassion. But this is not compassion.

Or shot the plane down.

That would be putting us down on their level Chuck.

The civilized thing to do was leave him in jail, let him appeal, and fly his family into see him if he is about to leave this planet's mortal coil. Being a hero in that part of the world can involve just killing a few infidels with a bomb. This man was likely part of a plot that brought down 271`in one go. You can bet a lot of radical fundamentalists see him as hero......

[chuck34]

So every occasion on which a miscarriage of justice is committed and then reversed is a case of 'letting anarchy reign'? Lots of people are wrongly found guilty by courts in democratic countries the world over every year.

No. If this was a miscarriage of justice, the appeals process should bear that out.

[chuck34]

Or shot the plane down.

That would be putting us down on their level Chuck.

The civilized thing to do was leave him in jail, let him appeal, and fly his family into see him if he is about to leave this planet's mortal coil. Being a hero in that part of the world can involve just killing a few infidels with a bomb. This man was likely part of a plot that brought down 271`in one go. You can bet a lot of radical fundamentalists see him as hero......

That's exaclty what I'm saying. Leaving a guilty man in jail to get treatment for his cancer, ease his suffering, allowing his family to visit. THAT is the compassionate thing to do. Leting him out is the suckers move.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So every occasion on which a miscarriage of justice is committed and then reversed is a case of 'letting anarchy reign'? Lots of people are wrongly found guilty by courts in democratic countries the world over every year.

No..you have a proper appeal, an inquiry, and if the crime is not heinous, release the prisonor on bail. In this case, considering the size of the crime, you do NOT release the man.

Miscarriages of Justice do happen, and Iam the first one to tell you it is the reason I have not advocated the death penalty. That said, he spent 8 years behind bars for a crime he was convicted of that killed 271 people ( I have to keep saying this to pound the point home. Daniel thinks this is trivial I think). He is a flight risk and therefore should have remained in custody. His health has nothing to do with the facts of the case, and while the UK has a compassionate release policy for men behind bars, I still think this one with the merits of the case set aside, had to be kept due to the nature of the crime.

IF you are going to release everyone in prison who claims innocense, you might as well have a revolving door on the front of it because most of them will tell you they didn't do it, even if 100000 people watched him do it on TV with a live broadcast with 5 cameras on the crime.

I am all for appeals, inquiries, and getting to the bottom of things, but him dying in jail wasn't going change my opinion of him one iota. He was GUILTY of heinous crime. Until that is sorted out, he would go no where.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's exaclty what I'm saying. Leaving a guilty man in jail to get treatment for his cancer, ease his suffering, allowing his family to visit. THAT is the compassionate thing to do. Leting him out is the suckers move.

See, now Fousto would just have him shot on the way out....I think he did say that. You and I Chuck are the ones balancing compassion with Justice. It is bleeding hearts that feel no pain in letting him go. They felt pain he was dying in prison...

[Mark in Oshawa]

So every occasion on which a miscarriage of justice is committed and then reversed is a case of 'letting anarchy reign'? Lots of people are wrongly found guilty by courts in democratic countries the world over every year.

Believe me Ben, I met the sister of David Milgard, the most famously convicted innocent man in Canadian history once. She told me about the strain on how he was locked in prison for close to 30 years. I am not about forgetting the innocent BUT I also have an uncle who worked in the correctional system for the Federal Gov't here in Canada, and he told me 90%of the people behind bars who claim their innocence never tell you the whole story and do some heinous things behind bars. Most convicted criminals will cry for a miscarriage of justice knowing full well they did it, because they love the attention.

The movement for the Unjustly convicted here in North America worked on behalf of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and Guy Paul Morin and it was all over the local media. I understand the movement, the motives of it and don't doubt their sincerity and their belief in the men they choose to help, but I do not think for one second this man in Scotland behind bars for the Lockerbie bombings was worthy of this mercy and consideration. He was involved somewhere and while he may be not the only one, he wasn't some random victim or in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Libyans have admitted their involvement I believe when they paid the victims and they gave this guy up to the UK for extradition. The only miscarriage of Justice is that Quaddafi never will stand trial.

[anthonyvop]

Umm, Libya paid $2.7 Billion to the victims.
That's $10 Million per family.
That's called blood money.
Any family that accepted the money should remain silent about this whole deal.
Why?

Using your logic anyone who is receiving Government assisitance shouldn't be aloud to vote.......Hey......That is a good idea.

[Camelopard]

It seems that according to the US the only terrorists that put bombs on planes that should be released are ones that bomb Cuban airliners.

Do a boogle search on this freedom fighter: Luis Posada Carriles

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=Luis+Posada+Carriles+&meta=&fp=2ab4e526282b1a8f (http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=Luis+Posada+Carriles+&meta=&fp=2ab4e526282b1a8fHow)

How much blood money was paid to the victims of this terrorist act? Oops it's only a terrorist act when US citizens are killed.

Double Standards, hypocrites? The US, never!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5338930.stm

Ex-CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles was held for crossing illegally from Mexico after serving time in Panama for plotting to kill Cuba's Fidel Castro.
Mr Posada Carriles faces deportation, but it cannot be to Cuba or Venezuela.
Venezuela, which says he was behind a 1976 plane bombing that killed 73 people, condemned the latest ruling.


http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/finally-luis-posada-carriles-indicted/

[anthonyvop]

It seems that according to the US the only terrorists that put bombs on planes that should be released are ones that bomb Cuban airliners.

Do a boogle search on this freedom fighter: Luis Posada Carriles

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=Luis+Posada+Carriles+&meta=&fp=2ab4e526282b1a8f (http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=Luis+Posada+Carriles+&meta=&fp=2ab4e526282b1a8fHow)

How much blood money was paid to the victims of this terrorist act? Oops it's only a terrorist act when US citizens are killed.

Double Standards, hypocrites? The US, never!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5338930.stm

Ex-CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles was held for crossing illegally from Mexico after serving time in Panama for plotting to kill Cuba's Fidel Castro.
Mr Posada Carriles faces deportation, but it cannot be to Cuba or Venezuela.
Venezuela, which says he was behind a 1976 plane bombing that killed 73 people, condemned the latest ruling.


http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/finally-luis-posada-carriles-indicted/

Wow,

Funny how you seemed to miss how Mr. Possada Carriles was twice acquitted by a Venezuelan court. he was only continued to be help because of Cuban pressure. But I guess Justice doesn't count when it could get in the way of bashing the U.S.

BTW. I enjoyed a Cafe Cubano this past Saturday with Sr. Posada Carriles. A very intelligent and well read, gentleman.

[Camelopard]

Must be a different bloke to the one I've read about! There is a lot of evidence out there that says he wasnt acquitted:

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&q=Luis+Posada+Carriles+acquittal+myth&meta=&fp=2ab4e526282b1a8f


This (http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/finally-luis-posada-carriles-indicted/) comes from a Miami Herlad link which has since gone to an archive and you have to register:

A federal grand jury handed up a new indictment against Luis Posada Carriles, for the first time linking the Cuban exile militant in a U.S. legal proceeding to a series of 1997 tourist-site bombings in Cuba that killed an Italian national. The superseding indictment from the grand jury in El Paso does not charge Posada, 81, with planting the bombs or plotting the bombings but with lying in an immigration court about his role in the attacks at hotels, bars and restaurants in the Havana area. The perjury counts were added to the previous indictment that accused Posada of lying in his citizenship application about how he got into the United States. Another new charge is obstruction of a U.S. investigation into “international terrorism.”
The indictment marks the first time since Posada arrived in the United States seeking asylum in March 2005 that the government has said he was involved in the Cuba bombings. A federal grand jury in New Jersey had been investigating Posada’s alleged involvement in raising money for the bombing campaign among Cuban exiles in Union City, but no charges have been handed up there.
The new charges almost certainly will dismay Posada’s supporters in the Cuban exile community who view the exile militant as a hero in the continuing struggle against the Cuban regime.



So you had coffee with him, that means your opinion is biased, not that I really care what you think and really all it means is that you actively associate with people that a lot of the world regards as being known terrorists.

Same with the US based supporters of the terrorist organisation the IRA. Has anyone ever been prosecuted in the US for supplying funds so that bunch of murderers could kill innocent people? I doubt it very much.

From http://www.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20050620/018932.html

The men were then charged with aggravated homicide and treason before a
civilian court, yet Posada escaped from his prison cell the day before a
verdict was to be announced. Under Venezuelan law, a judicial proceeding
cannot move forward without the presence of the accused, and so a verdict
has never been reached in his case. Posada remained a fugitive until he
was detained in Miami last month.

The acquittal myth may be used as an excuse for the United States not to
extradite an accused terrorist, so it is crucial that the media report the
situation accurately. When you see the acquittal myth repeated in press
accounts, please contact your newspaper to set the record straight.

[chuck34]

If it makes you feel better Camel, without knowing any facts, I'll make the following statement. If there is enough evidence against him, and he can be tried in a FAIR and OPEN court, I think he should be tried.

Feel better now?

[Camelopard]

If it makes you feel better Camel, without knowing any facts, I'll make the following statement. If there is enough evidence against him, and he can be tried in a FAIR and OPEN court, I think he should be tried.

Feel better now?

And YOU know as well as I do that that is NEVER going to happen..............

It doesn't surprise me that YOU don't know any facts about it, it is after all 'MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG' with you guys isn't it?

Admit it, there is ONE RULE for US sycophants (foustina, look it up in a dictionary!) and another RULE for every one else.

Eki and I have been accused of being Hamas members and supporters of terrorism by people on this forum (you there E.D.?) and yet we now have someone who openly admits to associating with KNOWN terrorists and you guys don't bat an eyelid!

Hypocrisy of the highest order..........

Again I am reminded of the words of that great protector of the American (US version) Dream, vop.......... yawn........................

[Mark in Oshawa]

And YOU know as well as I do that that is NEVER going to happen..............

It doesn't surprise me that YOU don't know any facts about it, it is after all 'MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG' with you guys isn't it?

Admit it, there is ONE RULE for US sycophants (foustina, look it up in a dictionary!) and another RULE for every one else.

Eki and I have been accused of being Hamas members and supporters of terrorism by people on this forum (you there E.D.?) and yet we now have someone who openly admits to associating with KNOWN terrorists and you guys don't bat an eyelid!

Hypocrisy of the highest order..........

Again I am reminded of the words of that great protector of the American (US version) Dream, vop.......... yawn........................

First off. Chuck don't know anything about it because of the fact likely in a giant world of activity, this guy and his actitivities doesn't make it above everything else that is going on.

Secondly, the US media and gov't does seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the actions of the Cuban exiles. That said, while I wouldn't condone what this guy may have done, Castro's regime is hardly a bastion of light and good will toward man. People will tend to try to fight these guys and Americans will back people who fight a dictator; so while we may not like his method's, unlike people who put bombs on civilian airliners because they are "infidels" from the great Satan, the cause this guy may be fighting for may be a goal we might want (democracy in Cuba) as opposed to ....just killing people.

Thirdly, and I agree with Chuck, if he broke the law, he should be tried. Period.

Fourth. Camel, I wont lump you with Eki, but I will say your backing of Hamas is an easy thing to do when you don't live in an society that would be threatened by them or have to live under them. Under Hamas, the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza has gotten much worse than their counterparts in the West Bank because Hamas wont even hear of any peace with Israel. You want your people's plight to improve and get international help, you don't keep persisting in a guerilla war with a very powerful opponent.

5th. We are talking about the terrorist that put a bomb on a airplane that murdered 271 people being allowed to go home for compassionate reasons. Should the Americans who lost family on this one just applaud? Should anyone? Are they hypocrites really because the US Gov't may back someone you don't like? You sound like a hypocrite, since you like some terrorists and condemn the Americans for liking ones YOU don't like. Lots of hypocracy in this big world chum....so drop the rancor and read through it and understand no country gets it right all the time, and one community can be always right either. The point is we all should try to grasp that backing democracy, human rights and the rights of nations to deterimine the own destiny will sometimes be messy. Some nations are going to get it wrong, some will invade the rights of others, but it is a lot of shades of gray.

You get on your high horse (or Giraffe)all you like BUT just know we could argue for ever about how wrong or how right any nation is, but when they get it right, it shouldn't be cancelled out by a time when they get it wrong.

ON this thread, the Scots blew it....on Cuba, and this gent you speak of, I don't know enough about it to judge, but let him be charged in a free societies court. Chavez's little bush league "democracy" doesn't qualify.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

PS...Americans who gave money or still are giving money to the IRA? A pox on their house...The IRA has done more to set back Ireland in the last 100 years than anything the UK ever did to Ulster in that time. The UK has a lot of skeltons in that closet but the IRA has just dragged that sorry mess out.....

I can speak to this, being the grandson of an Orangeman who wishes Ulster could make up its own mind in a legitimate fashion. Their fate would likely be better with the Republic, but a few stubborn morons walking around every July 12th cant seem to grasp that.

[F1boat]

That's not it dude.

There is a chance this man is innocent.

Do we

A) Assume he's guilty and leave him to rot in a prison and serve out his final few days wrongfully in a foreign prison

B) Let a guilty man go free and spend a few weeks or months with his family

C) Let an innocent man go free to spend his last few days in a prison

Now I'll assume you're a fan of option A. Explain to me why this is so good? What message does this send to other countries?

Worst case scenario, what is so wrong with B? It sends the message that if you commit an atrocity such as this that you will be sent away to prison for a long time and if you have a terminal disease Scotland won't be an arse about it. Being sent home for a few months with terminal cancer is hardly a victory for this guy. He will be dead in a few months and will die a rightly or wrongly convicted man.

Reading this statement from Mr al-Megrahi shows from my point of view why he should be treated differently to Ronnie Biggs for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8212910.stm

Totally agree!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Totally agree!

f1 Boat. read Option A. Assume this man is guilty and leave him to rot wrongfully in a foreign prison. If I assume he is guilty, than he isn't rotting wrongfully. Daniel and you are assuming this man WAS innocent. He was found guilty by a trial in a nation that created the innocent until proven guilty trial system and was given able counsel. He was extradited by the UK from Libya, not at random, but because there was evidence he was involved in the bombing. This man was not put on trial for picking flowers out of season.

The guillaiblity of those would defend a man who killed 271 people is not just galling, it is proving once again that an education is no bulwark against blindness if the education is not coupled with logic.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'll be glad to be going on the road, arguing with people who cant grasp the insult to those who lost loved ones on that plane because of their own political agenda is just mind numbing....

If you can justify the murder of 271 people in this manner for any reason, you would be a terrorist. If you can excuse the murderer's actions, you are a terrorist sympathizer. And if you keep looking for reasons to tear down free society because you don't like the result, I believe Stalin called you a "useful idiot"". I like to think Daniel you are not an idiot, (and Eki, and f1boat) but you are tiptoing up to that line.....

[F1boat]

f1 Boat. read Option A. Assume this man is guilty and leave him to rot wrongfully in a foreign prison. If I assume he is guilty, than he isn't rotting wrongfully. Daniel and you are assuming this man WAS innocent. He was found guilty by a trial in a nation that created the innocent until proven guilty trial system and was given able counsel. He was extradited by the UK from Libya, not at random, but because there was evidence he was involved in the bombing. This man was not put on trial for picking flowers out of season.

The guillaiblity of those would defend a man who killed 271 people is not just galling, it is proving once again that an education is no bulwark against blindness if the education is not coupled with logic.....

No, Mark, I do not take option A, but all three option and in my opinion Daniel explained very well why the decision of Scotland is justified - I can't say right, but justified. Nothing more to add. However, I have to stress my displeasure of the USA interfering with the decisions of Scotland. The Libyan was their prisoner and they did what they did.
And believe me, being a Bulgarian I have no compassion for the Libyan dictator who put our innocent medical sisters in his bloody dungeons for six years of terror. However, reading Daniel's post, if there was a chance that the al-Megrahi was innocent, letting him die with his family harms none and shows extremely high political culture of Scotland.

[Camelopard]

First off. Chuck don't know anything about it because of the fact likely in a giant world of activity, this guy and his actitivities doesn't make it above everything else that is going on.

Secondly, the US media and gov't does seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the actions of the Cuban exiles. That said, while I wouldn't condone what this guy may have done, Castro's regime is hardly a bastion of light and good will toward man. People will tend to try to fight these guys and Americans will back people who fight a dictator; so while we may not like his method's, unlike people who put bombs on civilian airliners because they are "infidels" from the great Satan, the cause this guy may be fighting for may be a goal we might want (democracy in Cuba) as opposed to ....just killing people.

Thirdly, and I agree with Chuck, if he broke the law, he should be tried. Period.

Fourth. Camel, I wont lump you with Eki, but I will say your backing of Hamas is an easy thing to do when you don't live in an society that would be threatened by them or have to live under them. Under Hamas, the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza has gotten much worse than their counterparts in the West Bank because Hamas wont even hear of any peace with Israel. You want your people's plight to improve and get international help, you don't keep persisting in a guerilla war with a very powerful opponent.

5th. We are talking about the terrorist that put a bomb on a airplane that murdered 271 people being allowed to go home for compassionate reasons. Should the Americans who lost family on this one just applaud? Should anyone? Are they hypocrites really because the US Gov't may back someone you don't like? You sound like a hypocrite, since you like some terrorists and condemn the Americans for liking ones YOU don't like. Lots of hypocracy in this big world chum....so drop the rancor and read through it and understand no country gets it right all the time, and one community can be always right either. The point is we all should try to grasp that backing democracy, human rights and the rights of nations to deterimine the own destiny will sometimes be messy. Some nations are going to get it wrong, some will invade the rights of others, but it is a lot of shades of gray.

You get on your high horse (or Giraffe)all you like BUT just know we could argue for ever about how wrong or how right any nation is, but when they get it right, it shouldn't be cancelled out by a time when they get it wrong.

ON this thread, the Scots blew it....on Cuba, and this gent you speak of, I don't know enough about it to judge, but let him be charged in a free societies court. Chavez's little bush league "democracy" doesn't qualify.....

Who has said Eki or I support Hamas and actively support terrorists? That bastion of free speech E.D. has, on numerous occasions in fact every time we dare to offer a different view or opinion to his narrow minded beliefs. There has been no criticism of vop (who has openly admitted consorting with terrorists) from E.D. or anyone else I notice, to be expected though! Yawn.....

Chavez was elected to power when? This bombing by the terrorist that vop supports (and has meetings with) took place in 1976, was Chavez in power then? If not who was?

If Carriles broke the law, which is fairly obvious he did (if you read unbiased accounts of his actions), who is going to bring him to trial, the US? Don't make me laugh, you know that is never ever going to happen, in particular due to the HUGE anti Castro support in the USA.

As some one else said, Libya paid a sh*t load of BLOOD MONEY to the relatives of those killed, people who took that CASH have in my opinion, NO right now say what should or shouldn't happen to anyone connected with that case.

So Mark, in effect you are saying that it is OK to kill people if they are against the american (US version) way of the how the world should be, but it isn't OK to kill people just to 'kill people'? Give me a break!

It's got nothing to do with with Castro's regime being right or wrong, it is all about justice and equality for all, regardless of race, nationality, political affiliation, sexual preference, whether I is black or white or in between or anything else.

After all he only killed 73 people not like the Pan Am plane that killed 271 and some on the ground so therefore Carriles crime isn't as bad as the Lockerbie bomber .

As for me being on my high horse (or giraffe or whatever) and supporting Hamas, show me anywhere that I have shown support for terrorism.

I'll ask a question again that I have asked before, have any of you been to Israel or the occupied territories? Last time I asked this question, NO ONE responded so I can only presume that NO ONE who criticises me or my opinions have been there. There for in regards to the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis I think I am totally justified in passing judgment on what I have seen, (even if it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas of what it is like), unlike you guys who hide behind a computer screen and only believe what you want to believe, or worse what your biased media tells you to believe......

[chuck34]

And YOU know as well as I do that that is NEVER going to happen..............

It doesn't surprise me that YOU don't know any facts about it, it is after all 'MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG' with you guys isn't it?

Admit it, there is ONE RULE for US sycophants (foustina, look it up in a dictionary!) and another RULE for every one else.

Eki and I have been accused of being Hamas members and supporters of terrorism by people on this forum (you there E.D.?) and yet we now have someone who openly admits to associating with KNOWN terrorists and you guys don't bat an eyelid!

Hypocrisy of the highest order..........

Again I am reminded of the words of that great protector of the American (US version) Dream, vop.......... yawn........................

What the Fack crawled up your @ss and died? I AGREE with you. This guy should stand trial, and from the little bit I know, he should probably be in jail for the rest of his life. And it should have happened a long time ago.

My country has been wrong on many many occasions. Too many for my taste. But so has yours, so has everyones. I don't defend my country at all costs. Sure I'm on it's side more often than not, but that can be said for anyone in any country. All you do is BASH the US at every turn. EVERYTHING the US has ever done is wrong, and taking the world down a path to hell according to you.

I am supposed to know everything about everything that goes on in the world now? Come on man this is an obscure nut job that hasn't been in the media. I'm sorry I'm not out there doing investigative journalism 24/7, but I do have a job, a wife, and hobbies. So get off your f'ing soap box.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion I'm more than happy to do that. But if all you are going to do is put me down for defending my country when it's doing something that I believe to be right, or calling out injustice where I see it. Then we're done. Especially if you blast me for AGREEING with you. If you aren't going to see past your hatred for the US and all those that defend this country to see that someone is AGREEING with you, then you are beyond having a logical and reasonable discussion with.

[Camelopard]

............edited............. Feel better now?


Condescending crap...... :)

[Camelopard]

At least this bloke has finally come out and said what he did was wrong, even if it has taken him 40 years:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32514139/ns/us_news-military/

[chuck34]

Condescending crap...... :)

Wow, just wow. You can't even take it when people agree with you? Awesome.

[chuck34]

At least this bloke has finally come out and said what he did was wrong, even if it has taken him 40 years:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32514139/ns/us_news-military/

Ah yes, a man that was convicted of a crime and served out his prision sentence. How horrible of the US!

[steve_spackman]

PS...Americans who gave money or still are giving money to the IRA? A pox on their house...The IRA has done more to set back Ireland in the last 100 years than anything the UK ever did to Ulster in that time. The UK has a lot of skeltons in that closet but the IRA has just dragged that sorry mess out.....

I can speak to this, being the grandson of an Orangeman who wishes Ulster could make up its own mind in a legitimate fashion. Their fate would likely be better with the Republic, but a few stubborn morons walking around every July 12th cant seem to grasp that.

Well they are celebrations which mark Prince William of Orange's victory over King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 so calling them stubborn morons is a bit over the top

[janvanvurpa]

Ah yes, a man that was convicted of a crime and served out his prision sentence. How horrible of the US!

Asusual, you cannot get a single thing right ever.
Amazing.
Try reading if you can't remember.

Here from the article:


Calley, 66, was a young Army lieutenant when a court-martial at nearby Fort Benning convicted him of murder in 1971 for killing 22 civilians during the infamous massacre of 500 men, women and children in Vietnam.
Though sentenced to life in prison, Calley ended up serving three years under house arrest after President Richard Nixon later reduced his sentence.

3 years under house arrest for a mass murder of upwards of 500 civilians.

Without getting all defensive explain to us how that is "Serving out his sentance'?

Sure he was a scapegoat, but what you write is so clearly wrong and dismissive.

[chuck34]

Asusual, you cannot get a single thing right ever.
Amazing.
Try reading if you can't remember.

Here from the article:


3 years under house arrest for a mass murder of upwards of 500 civilians.

Without getting all defensive explain to us how that is "Serving out his sentance'?

Sure he was a scapegoat, but what you write is so clearly wrong and dismissive.

Ok I was wrong on that one. My mistake. I didn't read the article, went off of memory.

You got one right this time. I got one wrong, oh well. But just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ALWAYS wrong.

[Garry Walker]

f1 Boat. read Option A. Assume this man is guilty and leave him to rot wrongfully in a foreign prison. If I assume he is guilty, than he isn't rotting wrongfully. Daniel and you are assuming this man WAS innocent. He was found guilty by a trial in a nation that created the innocent until proven guilty trial system and was given able counsel. He was extradited by the UK from Libya, not at random, but because there was evidence he was involved in the bombing. This man was not put on trial for picking flowers out of season.

The guillaiblity of those would defend a man who killed 271 people is not just galling, it is proving once again that an education is no bulwark against blindness if the education is not coupled with logic.....
Indeedy.
All evidence points to this guy being guilty, so releasing him is quite wrong. He did the crime, so he should do the time.
At least hopefully his death will be very painful, a deserved punishment for his actions.

[BDunnell]

Indeedy.
All evidence points to this guy being guilty, so releasing him is quite wrong. He did the crime, so he should do the time.
At least hopefully his death will be very painful, a deserved punishment for his actions.

'All' evidence? No.

[Garry Walker]

'All' evidence? No.

He was convicted, yes? Do you know better than the court? If so, show us the evidence, convince me he was a victim.

[Roamy]

He was convicted, yes? Do you know better than the court? If so, show us the evidence, convince me he was a victim.
:up: :up:

[janvanvurpa]

Ok I was wrong on that one. My mistake. I didn't read the article, went off of memory.

You got one right this time. I got one wrong, oh well. But just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ALWAYS wrong.

That's true.
For example your feelings on the Kennedy dead thread I agree with completely.

Point is that Calley was involved in a mass murder, within a conflict which in hindsight to anybody was essentially a policy of mass murder and people cheered him then AND defend him to this day.

People are people. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I don't cheer for killers period, not American, not Venezuelans, not Libyans.

But I don't expect others to conform to my standards and won't condemn others for doing what millions of my countrymen have done and still do:
idealize violent people.

[markabilly]

Opps truth leaks out about the spinelesss lack of leadership in the places known as Great Whimp Britain---What a big sell out!!!!

Rest in peace all those who died in Scotland despite the fact that those resposnible for your deaths go free.

It was all a deal

http://news.aol.com/article/oil-trade-talks-helped-free-libya-bomber/630527?icid=main|hp-laptop|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fartic le%2Foil-trade-talks-helped-free-libya-bomber%2F630527

my oh my sure know how to arrange things

[Mark in Oshawa]

Just remember Markabilly, it is the Labour party in Britain that was elected by many of these same guys defending this mess.....

That same party is the one doing back door deals with Libya. Me thinks it is real politic, just like it was when Dubya used to be accused of this sort of thing....countries do things that are not doing right by the victims of a lot of crimes...

[steve_spackman]

Opps truth leaks out about the spinelesss lack of leadership in the places known as Great Whimp Britain---What a big sell out!!!!

Rest in peace all those who died in Scotland despite the fact that those resposnible for your deaths go free.

Rest in peace all the Brits who were killed by the IRA bombers whom the US refused to hand over to the British government.....

[Malbec]

Rest in peace all the Brits who were killed by the IRA bombers whom the US refused to hand over to the British government.....

You mean the IRA bombers who used American kit bought with money raised in the US?

As for the Libyan bomber there's a good reason he was released which hasn't been mentioned, the guy was petitioning for an appeal. At some point his application would have had to have been granted and a full review of the evidence available (not just that used to convict him) would have been required. There's a strong suspicion that Libya was not alone in masterminding the bomb, that Iran was also somehow involved in retaliation for the USS Vincennes/Airbus incident, but that that link was covered up throughout the investigation as it was inconvenient. Releasing him ensured that that cover up never had to see the light of day.

[steve_spackman]

You mean the IRA bombers who used American kit bought with money raised in the US?

Yes..

The American kit that was used against people like my father when he served in the Royal Marines.

[BDunnell]

As for the Libyan bomber there's a good reason he was released which hasn't been mentioned, the guy was petitioning for an appeal. At some point his application would have had to have been granted and a full review of the evidence available (not just that used to convict him) would have been required. There's a strong suspicion that Libya was not alone in masterminding the bomb, that Iran was also somehow involved in retaliation for the USS Vincennes/Airbus incident, but that that link was covered up throughout the investigation as it was inconvenient. Releasing him ensured that that cover up never had to see the light of day.

Well, quite. The combination of that, the desire not to look too far into whether the bomb entered the airline baggage system at Heathrow, the desire not to upset diplomatic relations with Libya and other factors make a pretty potent combination in favour of avoiding that potentially embarrassing appeal. The notion that al-Megrahi acted alone is patently absurd, no matter who he was acting in concert with.

[BDunnell]

Just remember Markabilly, it is the Labour party in Britain that was elected by many of these same guys defending this mess.....

How on earth do you presume to know the voting preferences of everyone commenting here? I certainly don't vote Labour. We do have more than two parties in the UK, you know.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How on earth do you presume to know the voting preferences of everyone commenting here? I certainly don't vote Labour. We do have more than two parties in the UK, you know.

You would vote to the left of Labour. I certainly would guess there are two parties, I know THAT. That said, the Labour government of Tony Blair was the darling of the new Left when it was elected....of which many of the same people who are ok with this travesty no doubt voted for.

AS for you....I wont say you voted for Tony, I suspect he was too far to the right for you....

[BDunnell]

You would vote to the left of Labour. I certainly would guess there are two parties, I know THAT. That said, the Labour government of Tony Blair was the darling of the new Left when it was elected....of which many of the same people who are ok with this travesty no doubt voted for.

AS for you....I wont say you voted for Tony, I suspect he was too far to the right for you....

You seem to misunderstand how we vote in the UK, namely for the best local candidate. I have never voted Labour in my life, and will never do so unless I were to live in an area where the candidate was decisively better than the other non-Conservative choices. But neither would I ever vote for a far-left or socialist party of any sort.

[F1boat]

I'd like to vote for e left, non-Communist party in Bulgaria, so I like the Greens, but they have almost no support. So I vote for the center-right parties as they are not too right and are against the commies...

[Mark in Oshawa]

You seem to misunderstand how we vote in the UK, namely for the best local candidate. I have never voted Labour in my life, and will never do so unless I were to live in an area where the candidate was decisively better than the other non-Conservative choices. But neither would I ever vote for a far-left or socialist party of any sort.

Ben...you vote the same way I do. you have local candidates for MP who are representing the national parties. Last time I looked, you have a Westminster system of parlialment like Canada with an elected House of Commons, just like I am faced with. Since you haven't voted Labour, and you haven't voted Tory, and you claim not to have voted for the far left or socialists, you likely are voting for the British Libreal party. It is immaterial. My point was/is most of the people defending sending this convicted bomber of the Lockerbie tragedy back to Libya are more likely to have been supporters of the Labour party in the past.

[BDunnell]

My point was/is most of the people defending sending this convicted bomber of the Lockerbie tragedy back to Libya are more likely to have been supporters of the Labour party in the past.

So what? Most people who thought the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four should have remained in prison 'because they surely must have done something' were probably Conservatives. One 'side' doesn't have the monopoly on people supporting bad decisions.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So what? Most people who thought the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four should have remained in prison 'because they surely must have done something' were probably Conservatives. One 'side' doesn't have the monopoly on people supporting bad decisions.

Nope..but if a Tory gov't did something like this, would the supporters of this decision be in favour? Not likely.

I forget now where I was going with that train of thought, this happens when I am 2 weeks between posts sometimes...

[AAReagles]

The UK (well at least Scotland) is a civilised nation with a civilised government and we are a civilised people. We show compassion to others even if they show none to us.

Civilized? Really? Since when?

Quite honestly I don’t believe that mankind as a whole is civilized. And releasing this guy on a principle of compassion, isn’t necessarily a motion of being civilized; in fact it could easily be regarded as opposite since this action undermines the principles of life convictions as opposed to other options such as hard labor or capital punishment as the ultimate punishment.

Life sentences should be just that. Regardless of the condemned’s health matters.




It will only be through us showing others that we're better than them that we'll end this war on terror.....

Yeah right, like that’s really going to work. Sounds about as ideal as confronting a violent offender with organic cookies and soy milk, while discussing his low self-esteem issues.

Most of these guys (and women) come from rugged regions with cultures/societies to match, and there’s very little to influence them towards a favorable side of us westerners.

The only solution I see is for the US & EU to reduce their influence in the Middle-East. Which of course is wishful thinking on my part.



There is nothing wrong with showing compassion. If fact it takes a bigger and better person to show compassion in my opinion.

There's a time and place for everything, including compassion. And this wasn't one of them.

It's about accountability. He was convicted. Therefore he should have served out his sentence.




He was convicted, yes? Do you know better than the court? If so, show us the evidence, convince me he was a victim.
:up: Well put Mr. Walker.



...Having cancer should not come into question what-so-ever... Cancer shouldn't be a factor...
:up: :up: Bingo.





I'll be glad to be going on the road, arguing with people who cant grasp the insult to those who lost loved ones on that plane because of their own political agenda is just mind numbing.....
Convenience Mark, merely statements of convenience by a majority who apparently never experienced a tragedy of knowing someone who’s life ended unnecessarily to violence.

Now watch, someone will come up with some story about how they ‘forgave’ some offender of some sort, and showed him compassion.

[BDunnell]

Civilized? Really? Since when?

Quite honestly I don’t believe that mankind as a whole is civilized.

It is quite a strange set of value judgments that ends up with the view that 'we are all as bad as each other'.



The only solution I see is for the US & EU to reduce their influence in the Middle-East. Which of course is wishful thinking on my part.

A very valid solution, especially when coupled with an end to our slavish attitude towards certain regimes in the region.

But I say again, do you feel that all the doubts about the safety of the conviction should just be ignored?

[AAReagles]

It is quite a strange set of value judgments that ends up with the view that 'we are all as bad as each other'.
Like 'we're better than others' presumption is civilized ?

That's the kind of attitude that gets people (or nations if you will) into trouble.





A very valid solution, especially when coupled with an end to our slavish attitude towards certain regimes in the region.

But I say again, do you feel that all the doubts about the safety of the conviction should just be ignored?

As was said earlier, he was convicted. His sentence was life, not death. Therefore, considering the nature of the crime, he got compassion.

Did he renounce the bombing ? I haven't heard anything.

Now as you propose, he may be innocent; therefore it's a miscarriage of justice either way you look at it. So my point is, why the celebration ?

[BDunnell]

Like 'we're better than others' presumption is civilized ?

That's the kind of attitude that gets people (or nations if you will) into trouble.

I agree with the latter point. It can be if the belief is acted upon in the wrong way. But I believe that holding an opinion is no problem — for example, that a democratic political system is better than a dictatorship.



As was said earlier, he was convicted. His sentence was life, not death. Therefore, considering the nature of the crime, he got compassion.

Did he renounce the bombing ? I haven't heard anything.

Now as you propose, he may be innocent; therefore it's a miscarriage of justice either way you look at it. So my point is, why the celebration ?

I don't know what the motivation was for the celebration. And he didn't renounce the bombing — at least not publicly — but did protest innocence and had launched an appeal. There are certainly many unanswered questions relating to specific bits of evidence, which could have had a bearing on the conviction. Now, these will probably never be looked into officially. As I said earlier in this thread, the end result now is unsatisfactory for absolutely everybody.

[AAReagles]

I agree with the latter point... But I believe that holding an opinion is no problem....
You may not agree with the first part of what I stated, nevertheless I still by that, since the "civilized" notion bit sounded like a might stretch to me; much like that EU anti-CP promo that was in the May issue of Foreign Policy.

Now all that blue lettering on the lime-green background is pretty and everything - celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all the while criticizing the US & Japan as the only two democracies for maintaining CP sentences - but that advertisement doesn't do anything for me if Scotland and other "civilized" countries are incapable of fullying executing their sentences applied to murderous criminals.

Not that the US system is anything better by any stretch of the imagination, but Scotland has approved 23 early compassionate releases over the last decade or so. How many of them were convicted murderers I don't know. But as you might figure already, I do wonder about it.

And yes, I believe holding an opinion is no problem at all as well. It was after all just my opinion about mankind. You, I suppose, believe otherwise, and that's fine.

We could debate on that some, at various angles, but my opinion won't ever change, whether it's in regards to the general population driving habits or the fact that we all live under the gun; and let's face it nuclear weapons are never going away no matter what country's heads-of-state is promising.




I don't know what the motivation was for the celebration. And he didn't renounce the bombing — at least not publicly — but did protest innocence and had launched an appeal..

I was refering to the celebration-like mentalilty (particularly on the forum) for Scotland, not Libya.

He could profess all his innocence just as other convicts do; like some relatives of mine who revolved in & out of various county jails, state and federal penitentiaries.

Oh and they were innocent too by the way.

[AAReagles]

Side note: Susan Atkins, a member of notorious Manson followers died some time ago (late Sept), while in prison despite efforts to seek compassion early-release on the grounds that she was dying of brain cancer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-susan-atkins26-2009sep26,0,4180642.story

Surprisingly the California parole board denied her request :up: - just weeks before her expiration. Thankgoodness.