This afternoon, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will announce the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has been serving a life sentence for the Lockerbie Bombing in 1988.
This comes amid fierce criticism from many in the international community, most notably the families of the victims, and many within the US and UK goverments.
Is it right that he is released? Or, in the words of Hilary Clinton, is his release "absolutely wrong"?
He should be made to die alone in his cold cell, I'm not so sure he showed "compassion" when his Victims were taking their last breaths.
For once I agree with Hilary Clinton.
It's times like this we all want to put aside the civics of modern day society, take out our guns and just turn guys like him into human swiss cheese. That's what I think.
All Grand Theft Auto fantasies aside, there is only one rationalization (amidst explanations) for something like this: $$$$$$$$$! I'm not so sure judges who allow hard criminals to roam free like this don't know what they are doing. Looking at this sort of thing with a very cynical eye, I theorize it is somehow perversely profitable. But I guess that's just me and my nuttery. I mean, think about it. Backlash from this could, in turn, generate revenue for the system.
It's all just wrong, I tell ya.
While I can understand the compassionate part considering that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer. However, I did not see him or the other perpetrators of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing showing any compassion for their victims. They were not allowed to go home and get their affairs in order before their death.
Considering I watched my real father die of prostate cancer, I feel extremely guilty being happy that another human would suffer that fate, but in this case I am. :(
It's farcical.
Time off for being sick should have no place when considering punishment for the deaths of 270 people. Utter lack of remorse doesn't help matters.
Says a lot for the state of sentencing and imprisonment in this country.
Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.
I can only really echo all of your comments - I could understand if this were a lesser crime, but mass murder on such a scale should never be forgiven. The man was supposed to die in Jail, and should have, by all accounts.
It's farcical.
Time off for being sick should have no place when considering punishment for the deaths of 270 people. Utter lack of remorse doesn't help matters.
Says a lot for the state of sentencing and imprisonment in this country.
It puzzles me that the Prime Minister allowed this to be handled solely by the Scottish Government. Yes, he was tried by a Scottish court, and a prisoner of the Scottish government, but leaving it in the hands of one minister is negligent at best, especially when this has clearly had an impact on our foreign relations.
I'm going to join the chorus of people saying that this decision is absolute idiocy. No compassion was shown to the two hundred seventy people who died, and no compassion should be shown to the perpetrator.
Kudos, Scotland.
Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.Egocentric much?
Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?
Egocentric much?
Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?
It's my opinion that, in certain cases, this idea ends up causing more harm than good. This man was convicted of killing two hundred seventy people. Call it Biblical, but I don't think that he should enjoy comforts that those he murdered didn't have.
Egocentric much?Is there some reason why you need to be impolite? You've made a gross and incorrect assumption about my motives on top of it.
Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?Did he show any mercy to the people he blew up? He was shown mercy by not being put to death for his crimes as he would have been under Shari'a law in his own culture. Has he expressed regret for his crimes? No? Prison for life means just that--for life. Not 'for life til you're about to die, and then we'll let you out so you can meet up with your cell and plan more murders.' This is a safety issue for the entire world, not just me, since it's highly unlikely that I'm in a place that would be affected if he plans another crime. He is a menace to the entire world as a successful terrorist, and Scotland erred greatly by letting out such a dangerous man. The minister who allowed his release was foolish for doing this and putting more people in danger of experiencing the same thing.
Not to join the pile-on, but I don't see anything merciless about letting him die in prison where he belongs. In the interests of justice, an appropriate sentence would have involved his being pushed out of a plane at 30,000 feet without a parachute to give him a taste of what he did to those people.
I too believe that the Scottish minister is seriously mistaken if he thinks a man with cancer can't plan acts of terror.
After all...Bin Laden has kidney disease, and we know that horrors that he as brought about.
People die in jail all the time (and not just at the hands of other criminals). His cancer could be treated in prison. In the case of Agca, it was attempted murder of one person (even if it was the Pope) vs actually murdering almost 300 in the Lockerbie case. He should "rot" in jail till he's ready for his dirt nap. No misplaced "mercy" for this schmuck.
Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly.
You're absolutely right: he should be treated absolutely the same as anybody else should be under those circumstances.
After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?
That was an example of misplaced judgment, as is this case. I have to agree with Litofsky and Jae.
Proof of a criminal being remorseless might seem like a noble idea, but test out the reality of that. You find out the truth in due time when it's too late and more had to die needlessly. Keeping him in his cell to live out the rest of his days is the solution with the least amount of possible harm to be done in the big picture.
People are not locked up b/c they are good and nice. You turn your back on people like this and they'll strike the moment you're oblivious to them. Ferrile in civil society is dangerous. Talk to prison counselors or probation departments if you don't believe me.
Did he show any mercy to the people he blew up? He was shown mercy by not being put to death for his crimes as he would have been under Shari'a law in his own culture. Has he expressed regret for his crimes? No? Prison for life means just that--for life. Not 'for life til you're about to die, and then we'll let you out so you can meet up with your cell and plan more murders.'Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways.This is a safety issue for the entire world, not just me, since it's highly unlikely that I'm in a place that would be affected if he plans another crime. He is a menace to the entire world as a successful terrorist, and Scotland erred greatly by letting out such a dangerous man. The minister who allowed his release was foolish for doing this and putting more people in danger of experiencing the same thing."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.
Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.
What exactly are you proposing as a just punishment for someone convicted of killing almost 300 people? How is "fixing" someone particularly relevant if they are locked away for the rest of their life? Sort of hard to enact your vengeful tendencies when you're locked in a 6X8 cell for the rest of your days.
Concidering that the evidence against him was far from overwhelming, I'd say he might deserve a retrial, but not a release. As for him being a threat, considering the fact that he was supported by (at least parts of) the libyan state during his last action, and that the big G is currently not terribly keen on having the west turn against him, what's the chance of him being able to carry out a new attack?
Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways.
I don't believe anyone has previously mentioned that he was placed in isolation for the purpose of 'correcting himself.' This man was part of a plot that resulted in the deaths of two hundred seventy people. He's not going to isolation so that he can 'correct himself.' I do believe that isolation has far more sinister purpose.
"An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.
Again, I think that, in this case, it's precisely the thing that needs ti be done.
An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.
If it had truly been an eye for an eye this scumbag would have been dead. Kinda hard to have vengeful tendencies then isn't it.
I think it's fine that they released him, but only as long as he's kept under police watch. Letting someone convicted of bombings wander around free is just not a good idea, even if the evidence used to convict him doesn't seem so reliable now. It seems that the US is talking with Libya about doing this, so it's probably covered already.
It's natural to want him to suffer, especially the families of the victims. Compassion is extremely hard to show in a case like this. But because of that, his release exemplifies the vast gulf between a terrorist's morality and our own. If mercy can be shown even here, it is an example to the entire world - and to ourselves - that we are not like them, not even the slightest bit. And I am glad of it.
What exactly are you proposing as a just punishment for someone convicted of killing almost 300 people?Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly. As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways. How is "fixing" someone particularly relevant if they are locked away for the rest of their life?Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible.Sort of hard to enact your vengeful tendencies when you're locked in a 6X8 cell for the rest of your days.That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.
Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.
So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him.
Let me ask you this--if there's intel showing he's talked with his buddies about a particular flight, and you have a ticket to for that flight, are you going to get on board?
So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him.Only if he's on house arrest or other government surveillance, then I can't really see what's the matter with letting a convicted terrorist with terminal cancer to spend the rest of his days somewhere preferable. It's much akin to the tradition of a "last meal" before an execution, which is pretty much the same thing that he will be going through with prostate cancer.Let me ask you this--if there's intel showing he's talked with his buddies about a particular flight, and you have a ticket to for that flight, are you going to get on board?I'd prefer to leave hypothetical guiltbait out of the debate, Jae.
Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly. As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways.
Well, unless a guy is in solitary confinement for his whole time in prison, it's not exactly solitary. It is confinement. If a criminal isn't even remotely repentant for his/her behavior it would verge on madness and irresponsibility to release such a (probably sociopathic) person back into the public. Actually, I'd say there's no reason for them NOT to live in what you call solitude if they are unrepentant/unproductive in their ways.
Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible.That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.
Seems to me that life in prison is not even remotely a harsh sentence for the crime of which he was convicted (his actaul guilt being another matter).
I think it's fine that they released him, but only as long as he's kept under police watch. Letting someone convicted of bombings wander around free is just not a good idea, even if the evidence used to convict him doesn't seem so reliable now. It seems that the US is talking with Libya about doing this, so it's probably covered already.
I would imagine that every intelligence agency in the western world will be watching him in some way shape or form.
[...]Thanks for putting our safety at risk.Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.
Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.
he will make bombs from his chemo drugs bloo bloo bloo
Well, I think it does send a poor message. Help plan and execute an operation that kills a lot of people and you too probably won't have to serve out a life sentence if caught (at least if you're imprisoned in Scotland :xp:). I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? They're going to die soon anyway. I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like.
Well, I think it does send a poor message. Help plan and execute an operation that kills a lot of people and you too probably won't have to serve out a life sentence if caught (at least if you're imprisoned in Scotland :xp:). I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? They're going to die soon anyway. I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like.
I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? That is irrelevant. My only question was about the "risk to our safety" in a particular case. I never said there shouldn't be any condemnation.
Does it? Death sentence doesn't discourage people from committing crimes I've seen countless studies about it that tend to show that states/countries that have death penalty are far from getting lower crime rates than others ( I will gladly post some links on Sunday if needed but not at 1 am on a Friday evening...or Saturday morning...)
I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like. I so wish I could discuss this and post my opinion openly but I can't...let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it and, with all due respect (you certainly know I like to discuss politics with you :) ) , whether or not we agree with the release, don't see how in the hell (or heaven) it will affect "our safety" in any way.
Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.
Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one? He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.
@PastramiX--I'll take your non-answer as a 'no', you wouldn't get on the plane. ;P
While evidence for his indictment may seem a bit questionable, does nobody think he, himself, might have had something to do with putting the cloud of doubt upon the evidence? Consider it.
Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly.
There are cases where there is no other alternative. I see you insist this isn't one of them, though below you do acknowledge such a case.
As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? Because this may be the very slipping point some of them need for *just one more* strike. That is how criminal minds operate. They're not above taking advantage of the gullible.
While there is no shame in trying to understand people, at some point you have to stop intellectualizing because there are people who will never change. Especially if nothing more can be done to understand. It's a refinement that would probably do a great job of separating the truly good from the truly bad. But for the few you do purge from the pile-up, how many more are nothing but a hopeless pursuit?
Also, such a thing is not only dangerous but also expensive. If you throw money at it, what defines it as cost effective, marginally rehabilitated individuals? How many of those (which itself is still a shaky prospect) do you get compared to, hopeless wild goose chases?
As generalized as propositions are when proposed: if it is not cost effective, do you really think the public is going to take kindly to it?
Someone who is/has been a threat to multiple people...going light on them is hardly smart or wise.
There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways.
I disagree, especially where rehabilitation has been tried and it failed. Not to say it _never_ works, but as I pointed out above, it may not be coste effective, amongst several other issues to be considered.
Productive and Repentant are two concepts it sounds like you've mish-mashed together.
Productivity wise: I agree with you that people in 'the system' need to be made to be more productive. However, that'll never make someone change their ways. It would be a way of making the guilty earn their keep.
Repentance is, obviously, changed of their ways. At risk of sounding judgmental: While it is the objective of correctional disciplinsation, it is often not reachable.
Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. As do I. Still, this can only be so effective.
Curious. Have you ever taken any criminal justice classes? Have you ever worked for/with a company that contracts with the government to attempt to rehabilitate individuals deemed most eligible for rehab/probation? You do sound genuine in your concerns.
After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible. The prison and jail systems around the world are not perfect. Sometimes I even believe our suspicions are spot on that the system is just doing whatever it can in order to make as much money for itself as possible. Having said that, I'd prefer that all potential dangers to society be locked safely away from where they could harm innocents.
That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.
Granted.
At what point would this no longer be effective, though?
So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.
If you don't personally agree with the decision, it may be subjective, or it may be that other smarts aside from the book variety are kicking in. Street smarts. So far as the danger, well, if he was connected to something that culminated in the deaths of so many, then I would think that alone raises several questions about his ability to plan guerrilla warfare tactics. On top, if he is potentially involved with killing people, does that not raise questions about his ethical and moral standpoint?
If the two questions together do not raise enough concern about the threat he poses to the safety of citizens, then would you mind telling me what does constitute such concern?
Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one? He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.
Hadn't even gotten to that--conspiring to grow a militia for malicious intents. Another consideration.
At the end of the day, I dont believe in all this rehabilitation, for a thief or drug user yes, Murderer... sorry, your in side a cell because the country who prosecuted you doesn't believe in the death penalty, there is no coming back, no compassion IMO, You deserve nothing.
Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one?Nothing; whether or not he will actually physically prepare and execute an attack, either personally or through other contacts, is a completely different question. As far as I know, he's under certain degree of surveillance by the Libyan gov't, and if that doesn't provide solace, then he's probably being stalked by every asset that the CIA has at their disposal.He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.Okay, but IMO, most of the families are incapable of showing a scrap of compassion, mercy, etc. towards the man, which is understandable, but is also simply a concentration of vengeance clouding all sort of reason. Ergo, they shouldn't even be taken seriously as a font of judgment in this argument.@PastramiX--I'll take your non-answer as a 'no', you wouldn't get on the plane. ;PSorry; I don't answer questions designed to elicit a negative response from either answer; that's character assassination. Perhaps if I was presented an argument not based on borderline ad hominem, then perhaps I would provide an actual answer. Until then, I'm saving you the delight of answering your trap. ;)
That is irrelevant. My only question was about the "risk to our safety" in a particular case. I never said there shouldn't be any condemnation.
Problem is that it's an open question as to what threat he personally may be now that he's free. If you mean to imply that you think setting him free is a case of poor judgement (hence condemnable), but you believe him too far gone to be a direct threat, that is speculative (as is the contention that he'll probably blow up another plane). My point is that "mercy" in this case was clearly misplaced. He could have been treated for cancer while imprisoned. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that such "mercy" only reinforces the idea of a the "west" as weak and corrupt in the eyes of the radical islamist. Such people are only egged on by such gestures.
Does it? Death sentence doesn't discourage people from committing crimes I've seen countless studies about it that tend to show that states/countries that have death penalty are far from getting lower crime rates than others ( I will gladly post some links on Sunday if needed but not at 1 am on a Friday evening...or Saturday morning...)
Actually, you may have jumped the gun here as you seem to infer I'm saying he should've gotten the death penalty (not that it would have bothered me, either) and that would have dissuaded others from following in his footsteps. The only recidivism we know for sure that the death penalty prevents is by the perp himself or herself. I don't believe the point of execution is primarily to serve as a deterrent to others as much as a guarantee that the perp in question will never become a recidivist. As to the links, if you wish to post them, I'll take a look.
I so wish I could discuss this and post my opinion openly but I can't...let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it and, with all due respect (you certainly know I like to discuss politics with you :) ) , whether or not we agree with the release, don't see how in the hell (or heaven) it will affect "our safety" in any way.
Not quite sure what you mean by "it" (let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it ), unless you mean safety in the general sense. Well, without a crystal ball/clairvoyance/inside info, it's difficult to make a rock solid open-shut case about anything, really.;)
Well, the silence from our glorious leader on this matter is deafening.
The Scottish Parliament was recalled for an emergency session yesterday to discuss the matter, amid continued criticism from within the UK and across the Atlantic. There are rumours and accusations that Megrahi's release is due to a trade agreement between the UK and Libyan governments.
So, where's Gordon been? On holiday, leaving Lord Mandelson (or, the cat that got the cream) to speak on the matter, which is ironic considering he's linked to the accusations of an agreement with Libya.
I find it ridiculous that the Prime Minister can take time out of his schedule to congratulate British sports teams on their victories, or speak about the death of a celebrity, or enquire about the health of Susan Boyle when he wants to, but can't be found when there's a genuine crisis occuring.
He's meeting the Israeli Prime Minister today - and he can't avoid answering some very hard questions about the release of Megrahi.
It's just a shame it's almost six days too late.
The whole thing has been absurd - I was expecting a meeting of the Parliaments, or for the Minister to be dragged before a Committee within a day or two, yet only now after nearly a week does the government start to stir...
The rumour about an exchange for trade, well it was my first thought too, especially since a while back (years, maybe?) we were being convinced that the Libyan government was our new best friend - I seem to remember a Libyan representative of some kind being brought to the site of the bombing.
I wonder, what would the backlash be if such a thing ever emerged? I would expect the current Scottish government party to get hammered - I don't know if it's possible for Labour to be in any worse position, but I'm sure their total lack of input/intervention will count against them.
Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'
Suggestions that he was not as ill as was thought, apparent lack of symptoms for such an advanced stage, no consensus or specialists willing to say, notions that the doctor who did give the prognosis was in the employ of Libya...
Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems. If they cannot prove their own assertions - well, at least we know the current British Government isn't likely to do anything, after Brown's speech.
"I really don't think we should be speculating on the day somebody is going to die."
When that's the reason for a mass murderer being released, yeah we really should.
It's disgraceful at best.
Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems.
I have to agree, and it only reinforces my view that such a decision should not have been made solely by one Scottish minister, no matter how much he 'weighed the consequences'. The decision should have been made by the UK government, with close co-operation with the US government.
This affair has already damaged Scotland and the UK's image abroad (seeing as there are some misguided individuals out there who can't make the distinction between the two), and it may well do untold damage to both governments at the next election.
Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.
Technically it'd be far easier to organize while behind bars.
As for his release, it's extremely disrespectful for those closely tied to the event that placed him in prison. There are numerous convicts I can think of that would be better suited for pity release.
The whole thing has been absurd - I was expecting a meeting of the Parliaments, or for the Minister to be dragged before a Committee within a day or two, yet only now after nearly a week does the government start to stir...
Uh-oh... Welcome to how it's all done (stalling and dragging it out as long as possible for media and whatnot) in America's less scrupulous corners.
The rumour about an exchange for trade, well it was my first thought too, especially since a while back (years, maybe?) we were being convinced that the Libyan government was our new best friend - I seem to remember a Libyan representative of some kind being brought to the site of the bombing.
...NEW BEST FRIEND?! WTF? That's just...screwed up, man... RPG launching, machine gun toting, aggressive Lybians? Oh lord. I'm becoming cynical about your country already, just hearing that.
Justice, my friend, is about to take on a whole new meaning for your nation if it hasn't already.
I wonder, what would the backlash be if such a thing ever emerged? I would expect the current Scottish government party to get hammered - I don't know if it's possible for Labour to be in any worse position, but I'm sure their total lack of input/intervention will count against them.
It could and will get worse: I'd be wary of anyone talking about changing the constitution in your country or somehow relegating/curtailing/ or in some way controlling free speech and setting limits to your level of civil protest.
Be it through some kind of broad censorship/doctrine and/or some kinds of rules that would allow for arbitrarily deciding whether or not you are 'diverse' enough when that itself may be a red herring to the points you're trying to get across.
Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'
You'd be surprised of how many people would actually argue the case of innocence for people like Hitler, Stalin, or even Mao Tse Tung who murdered more than the both of them combined. Funny how American textbooks are conveniently omitting that fact. :¬:
Suggestions that he was not as ill as was thought, apparent lack of symptoms for such an advanced stage, no consensus or specialists willing to say, notions that the doctor who did give the prognosis was in the employ of Libya...
And there has been no significant dialog about it yet, has there? Neither about the doctor, nor the 'patient' has been discussed in any great detail, has it?
...seen it happen before...
Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems. If they cannot prove their own assertions - well, at least we know the current British Government isn't likely to do anything, after Brown's speech.
When that's the reason for a mass murderer being released, yeah we really should.
I agree.
Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'What about them? In the end, it is clearly the Justice Secretary's decision to allow mercy releases like this one or not. It's not a case of "You meet these criteria, you get out." One prisoner's release does not guarantee another prisoner's release, even if they have exactly the same circumstances. Instead, whether one is released or not relies entirely on the will of the secretary.
As for it making precedent, well, conforming to precedent with the mercy power would make absolute nonsense of the power in the first place. The purpose being, of course, to grant mercy when it is desirable, regardless of the circumstances of the prisoner. Not to mention it would limit the power of the office, and no official would ever want that...
Government Releases Lockerbie Documents. (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8230722.stm)
Both the Scottish and UK government have released letters and documents relating to the release of Megrahi.
One such letter suggests that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary did not want Megrahi to die in prison.
The Prime Minister has still refused to publish his feelings on the matter, simply saying that it was a matter for the Scottish Government. But it now seems that, behind closed doors, the Prime Minister was in favour of releasing Megrahi.
And of course, this comes a few days after it emerged that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, made clear that it was in the UK's 'best interests' that Megrahi was not excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.
Opposition Leader, David Cameron has called for an inquiry into the release and the alleged deals behind it.
One thing is certain - the Government (and the Prime Minister) can't ignore this for much longer.
And of course, this comes a few days after it emerged that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, made clear that it was in the UK's 'best interests' that Megrahi was not excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.
The UK's 'best interests' also happen to involve a sweet oil deal.
What a surprise. I think I'll have a heart attack and die from that surprise. [/Iago the Parrot sarcasm]
The UK's 'best interests' also happen to involve a sweet oil deal.
Does that mean it was a "Megrahi for oil scandal" :xp:
What I don't understand is how in any way this will prove to benefit anyone in this supposed war on terrorists. Terrorists are made every day through starvation and mistreatment, hell this will probably provoke some Scots to do a little devilish business.
It doesn't really benefit anybody but the terrorists. It benefits them as they now have: A) A free hero who got away from the West. B) A resource on how to conduct plane bombings. C) A clear indication that the West is weak.
Point B isn't truly valid since the security measures -at least I would have to think- have more than doubled since then, but it's still a concern.
What I don't understand is how in any way this will prove to benefit anyone in this supposed war on terrorists. Terrorists are made every day through starvation and mistreatment, hell this will probably provoke some Scots to do a little devilish business.
It doesn't really benefit anybody but the terrorists. It benefits them as they now have: A) A free hero who got away from the West. B) A resource on how to conduct plane bombings. C) A clear indication that the West is weak.
Point B isn't truly valid since the security measures -at least I would have to think- have more than doubled since then, but it's still a concern.
Vicious circle.
It is an unfortunate turn of events to be sure. I guess the best we can do is be vigilant and on guard.