Even if the crazies think that the "West is weak" because we happen to have some idea of mercy, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be merciful. It just means the crazies are sociopaths.
Basing our moral decisions for real people in situations that we have control over on the fear of what a tiny, relatively anonymous sociopathic minority might do is insane. In fact, I'd suggest that allowing them to manipulate you into such a position is a far better indication that the "West is [morally] weak" than freeing any prisoner.
C) A clear indication that the West is weak.
How is it a indication that the West is weak? That isn't clear to me?
I always thought mercy was compassion shown to someone you have some power over. So in my opinion mercy is a sign of strength not weakness.
The reasons for such "mercy" being shown are most likely the determining factors in deciding decadence and weakness. It's looking like oil was probably the reason. I'd say that feeling you can show "mercy" indicates that you feel comfortable enough about how strong you perceive yourself, but not necessarily how strong you are or how others view you. Frankly, even with his diagnosis of terminal cancer, his "alleged" crime earned him a stiff sentence and it should have been seen through even if the perp died in prison. He could easily have been shown "mercy" in the hospital ward of a prison system.
Everyone is ignoring the effect this has on the families of those that this man is convicted of killing in addition to those who might suffer if his information on bombing planes is used by future terrorists. The victims have received less consideration than the murderer, for oil no less, and that's not right.
True enough. I'm sure the victims' families are none too pleased, if not livid.
While mercy is a divine trait, it could be foolish. Especially in the face of these kind of events involving unscrupulous opportunists.
"People change, they settle down and mature out."
Well yeah, sure. That doesn't mean, however, that these people necessarily have changed their views nor their resentment of that which they once overtly attacked.
This kind of release is not only an insult to the victims' families (as Jae pointed out above), but it also flies in the face of common sense approaches to keep the masses safe from this sort of thing.
Not sure exactly what more there is to understand about these people if they refuse to change their mind in this fundamental aspect and set in their ways...Just saying...
I’m not overlooking the victims and if I was the one making the decision Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Not out of fear of him teaching others or helping plan an attack, but for no other reasons than the victims’ families and friends.
All I was stating that mercy can only be given from a state of power, so it does not clearly show a weakness.
I also wholeheartedly disagree that we must change to combat unscrupulous opportunists. If we give up on the principles that make us who we are, then we may as well join the terrorist, because they have already won. If it is within our society norm to be merciful, then we should be merciful and who cares what the terrorist think about it.
I’m not really worried about Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and it is not because he is terminally ill. It is because Libya now has too much to lose from an attack against the west. Still, he should have not been released. It was very disrespectful to the victims and their families and friends.
I’m not overlooking the victims and if I was the one making the decision Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Not out of fear of him teaching others or helping plan an attack, but for no other reasons than the victims’ families and friends.
Understood.
All I was stating that mercy can only be given from a state of power, so it does not clearly show a weakness. Agreed. Still there are times it is foolish enough to outweigh the good done from such virtuous acts. But, I don't need to tell you that.
I also wholeheartedly disagree that we must change to combat unscrupulous opportunists. We're not changing anything by exercising discretionary caution on a case by case level. Strategic.
Don't know where you got/I implied we had to change ourselves to combat them.
If we give up on the principles that make us who we are, then we may as well join the terrorist, because they have already won.
I'll agree there, though possibly for different reasons.
If it is within our society norm to be merciful, then we should be merciful and who cares what the terrorist think about it.
Easier said when they are relatively harmless.
The criminal mind looks for any give in the resolve of society and its inhabitants. If give is shown to these kind of people, they take it as a sign of weakness and will never stop pushing it, nobility and virtue does not matter to them. This is not in every case, mind you, but is common to the criminal mindset especially considered to not be capable of changing and rehabilitating. Most of those are ones targeting society.
I’m not really worried about Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and it is not because he is terminally ill. It is because Libya now has too much to lose from an attack against the west. Still, he should have not been released. It was very disrespectful to the victims and their families and friends.
Very well. You do seem to have thought it through, so I cannot fault you there. ;) Ours is merely a difference of opinion regarding discretions, then.
Technically however this wasn't done as an act of mercy, it's become more apparent that the release was politically based. When it's done as a backdoor deal, it's not mercy. So all of that talk is now gobbledeeguck.
I can't say for certain what my decision to do otherwise might have been at this time since I don't think anyone knows the full details, but these deals are usually under questionable logic and smell like a school lunch trade scam, like trading your chocolate cake for the mystery bagged lunch.
The reasons for such "mercy" being shown are most likely the determining factors in deciding decadence and weakness.
Other than phillisophical idealism, not really sure where the mercy part came in here. It'd be hyperbole to say it was in the spirit of genuine character in capitalism. Let's face it, we know there are apologists who would even go so far as to toss it that way too.
It's looking like oil was probably the reason. I'd say that feeling you can show "mercy" indicates that you feel comfortable enough about how strong you perceive yourself, but not necessarily how strong you are or how others view you. Frankly, even with his diagnosis of terminal cancer, his "alleged" crime earned him a stiff sentence and it should have been seen through even if the perp died in prison. He could easily have been shown "mercy" in the hospital ward of a prison system.
From a realist perspective we find it suspicious there's been no significant dialog on the doctor as an individual, nor the case itself; let alone the correlative matters of the two regarding the criminal. So I guess none of us should be surprised that politics and monetary/economical gain were motive here. It's really the only answer any of us can conjure--not that it's a secret.
Frankly, an oil deal is the only thing that really makes sense about this guy's early release. "Humanitarian" justifications alone would really not be sufficient given the circumstances surrounding his crime.
Yeah, I had a feeling that this was politically motivated. :roleyess:
I'm loving the paranoid overreaction from some of you Yanks - the doomsaying from some of you sounds absurd about a man who was moved to a hospital in the last few days in a country that has officially rejected terrorism.
There's also the small matter that the evidence against Megrahi is, to say the least, somewhat flimsy, and that he was not tried by a jury, and that, among others, Dr. Jim Swire, among others, holds that Megrahi is innocent.
I'm also enjoying the grossly hypocritical flinging of accusations at us over a potential oil deal - because the United States, the bastion of moral rectitude, would never do anything for such base reasons as oil... would it?
Tell me honestly, what upsets you more - that Megrahi went free or that we dared to challenge America's claim to sovereignty over the UK?
Flip a coin. :D
Seriously, though, if the US invaded Iraq for oil as the by now overly clichéd accusation states, I'd just like to know one thing:
WHERE THE **** IS OUR CHEAP GAS?! I sure as hell haven't seen any. Instead, we got burned by a huge, possibly politically motivated price-hike.
Lord Palmerston said:
“Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
I'd say the above quote is a pretty fair observation about political reality. I may disagree with the decision to release him, but recognize that they had the right to do so according to their laws. Should be interesting to see what, if any, repercussions fall out from this.
WHERE THE **** IS OUR CHEAP GAS?! I sure as hell haven't seen any. Instead, we got burned by a huge, possibly politically motivated price-hike.
I don't mean to sound rude when I say this, but you aren't terribly versed in how the oil companies work are you? You do realize the oil companies artifically hike the gas prices, we have enough in our hold at this time for gas prices to be under a dollar, but that doesn't get them their profit. As well we have punched land that isn't even being tapped and they still want more places to tap like Alaska.
The reason we don't see anything from our oil companies is because of private interest. They know that they have control over the system and there isn't a damn thing we can do to say about it. Why do you think Halliburton was the first company in Iraq? They have private security that they hired, Blackwater, a private mercenary army.
Was Iraq solely about oil? No. But we sure as hell have plenty of oil, they just don't want us to believe that. If we did then no one would be shouting "Drill here. Drill Now" and "Drill baby, drill". We have enough oil for well over 100 years, but if people don't know it then we can sell it like it's a rarity. Infact right now they're selling it to countries like China and it's even believed that they're currently selling to North Korea.
It's all about money
I don't mean to sound rude when I say this, but you aren't terribly versed in how the oil companies work are you? You do realize the oil companies artifically hike the gas prices, we have enough in our hold at this time for gas prices to be under a dollar, but that doesn't get them their profit. As well we have punched land that isn't even being tapped and they still want more places to tap like Alaska.
Are you referring to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that politicians occasionally threaten to dip into to try to lower oil prices?
The reason we don't see anything from our oil companies is because of private interest. They know that they have control over the system and there isn't a damn thing we can do to say about it. Why do you think Halliburton was the first company in Iraq? They have private security that they hired, Blackwater, a private mercenary army.
Wouldn't have anything to do with them being as big and experienced as they are, would it. Besides, unless the greenies and oil barons are in bed together, seems like govt and pseudo-science are attempting to do something about it w/this current Congress and administration. Seems we're willing to facilitate oil exploration off Brazil but not of the coast of America.
Was Iraq solely about oil? No. But we sure as hell have plenty of oil, they just don't want us to believe that. If we did then no one would be shouting "Drill here. Drill Now" and "Drill baby, drill". We have enough oil for well over 100 years, but if people don't know it then we can sell it like it's a rarity. Infact right now they're selling it to countries like China and it's even believed that they're currently selling to North Korea.
So, peak oil is a "right wing private enterprise" conspiracy? Remember, it was under Clinton that we started talking about selling oil to NK as part of a carrot and....well mostly carrot operation to try to get them to scale back on their nuke program. Sadly, I don't think this really changed under Bush either in the end. We've been selling heavier AK crude to the Japanese for years.
It's all about money
Well, the expression $$ talks and BS walks comes to mind. Sad but true.
Are you referring to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that politicians occasionally threaten to dip into to try to lower oil prices?
I'm referring to the oil fields we've had ready to go since the 1960's even here in Texas.
Wouldn't have anything to do with them being as big and experienced as they are, would it.
All other business enterprises after invasions were never done in exclusivity contracts, Haliburton holds all oil rights.
Hell we gave the Japanese BOTH Burger King and McDonald's.
So, peak oil is a "right wing private enterprise" conspiracy?
I don't recall saying that, only saying that the oil companies couldn't get their lobbyists to convince people to get these things going. It'd be hard to convince people that it's absolute necessity for us to do this if they knew we had plenty of oil for ourselves as well as others already. It's all about maximizing their profit and minimalizing customer service, it's a common business practice that is used these days.
Well, the expression $$ talks and BS walks comes to mind. Sad but true.
Absolutely.
We are however getting off topic on this, I suppose if anyone wants to continue discussion we could have a moderator split this off from the thread or at least have these posts copied over to a new one.
I'm referring to the oil fields we've had ready to go since the 1960's even here in Texas.
Well, from what I recall, they could....even with higher US costs, still make a profit on domestic oil at current prices. Stumbling blocks are as much if not more so political these days.
All other business enterprises after invasions were never done in exclusivity contracts, Haliburton holds all oil rights.
Hell we gave the Japanese BOTH Burger King and McDonald's.
Micky Ds and BK are worlds apart from Haliburton, both in the nature of what's involved and the scope. Doesn't mean that Haliburton doesn't do unethical things (like many govt contractors), but the this is mostly apples and oranges. Unless you're contending that Haliburton started the 2nd Gulf War to secure those rights or increase the profitability of such holdings, not clear on what your point is here.
I don't recall saying that, only saying that the oil companies couldn't get their lobbyists to convince people to get these things going. It'd be hard to convince people that it's absolute necessity for us to do this if they knew we had plenty of oil for ourselves as well as others already. It's all about maximizing their profit and minimalizing customer service, it's a common business practice that is used these days.
Didn't say you made that statement. However, given your apparent hostility toward big corporations not clear on what you're driving at here either. You contend that we have enough oil for the US for at least another 100 years. Many oil experts often contend we are at/past peak oil and that there's not enough for maybe even the next 50-60 years at current consumption rates. Also, if "Big Oil" really wants to hide this excess oil....why would you contend, beyond a cynical *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* that these companies would even bother lobbying people in DC to produce more dometic oil in the first place? They could simply maximize their profits via their share of control of foreign oil sources and save $$ on unnecessary lobbying. Throw in the occasional global crisis and they're all good, so to speak.
Absolutely.
We are however getting off topic on this, I suppose if anyone wants to continue discussion we could have a moderator split this off from the thread or at least have these posts copied over to a new one.
Not a bad idea.
(1) Some prosecuted jihadists may have reasonable grounds to argue POW status.
(2) My sentiments are that in the cases of extreme abuse related crimes (not necessarily including the case of targeting civilians which is a viable military target whether anyone likes it or not) it is for the families and victims directly involved to lead recourse.
(3) In the case of serious crime the judiciary is not subject to extremist or popular social sentiments. Their responsibility is to the evidentiary procedure and proportional sentencing. Agreed particularly in the cases of abuse related crimes the popular sentencing procedures of many democratic nations could use a little revision. But "the war on terrorism" should not be used as a proxy for this, or you might find yourself facing 25 years for making a joke in a pub about death and slaughter to someone insane enough to go out and commit it the next day.
*Epic Bump*
The recent defection of Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who has long been touted as the mastermind of the Lockerbie bombing has prompted Scottish Prosecutors to seek an interview with him. (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12919077)
Who knows what this might reveal about the truth behind the bombing, and perhaps even reveal more about the circumstances of Al-Megrahi's release.
And he's still alive. Turns out that "3 months" has been more like 19 so far. One could stretch and say 16, since he's supposedly been in a coma since December, but I'll believe that when I see it. 'Compassion' releases for violent crimes are idiocy. Cancer should not be considered a valid reason to excuse someone from paying the price society imposed on them for their actions. (It doesn't matter whether they're too old/sick/whatever to still be a direct danger)
Regarding Koussa, make no mistake: Koussa is just as bad as Gaddafi, but unlike Gaddafi, he is completely sane. He's simply decided that although the result of the conflict is still up in the air, he's not willing to risk whatever fate the rebels would intend for him, and would be better off with the lesser, though certain, sacrifice that is a western prison sentence. This defection had nothing to do with morals. He had a hand in a lot of unpleasant situations, and should be locked away for a proper, die-in-prison life sentence, somewhere where he'll never see daylight again. We don't want to discourage future defectors, but a line has to be drawn regarding what will simply be ignored after defection, and anything we can do to him is nothing compared to what could happen if he'd stayed in Libya. Of course, rebel victory is far from certain, and honestly, given the growing numbers of jihadis in the rebel ranks, I'm hoping for the rebels to just provide enough pressure for an in-government coup followed by major reforms. An outright rebel victory, with total dissolution of the existing government, would have some very serious consequences.