• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

E.J.Armstrong

Illuminator
E
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
3,806
'...The US secretary of state Hillary Clinton piled more pressure on the Scottish Government today over whether to free the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing by issuing a fresh call to keep him locked up.

Mrs Clinton said it was "absolutely wrong" to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, adding: "We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not." ...'

from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-free-lockerbie-man-says-clinton-1774170.html

Unfortunately for Mrs Clinton and all the US senators none of their pressure will work as the Scottish Government acts only in the interests of the Scottish people - not the US.
 
Well some of us would be slightly more cynical and state that "The Scottish Government acts only in the interests of gaining independence for Scotland." ;)

That aside I think that considering the number of USA citizens killed in the terrorist attack it is entirely right and proper that the USA government should make whatever statements it seems fit to do regarding its opinion on the issue.

I think her words were entirely appropriate, if she had criticized the Scottish justice system that would have been inappropriate however she didn't merely expressed the USA government's opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, I think it's perfectly fine for the US to express an opinion on the sentencing of someone convicted of killing lots of Americans. I'd want the British government to do the same in reverse.

Now, it's rather obvious that al Megrahi isn't actually guilty of the crime he's festering in gaol for, but that's by the by. The US government is still allowed an opinion.
 
By all means let this terrorist go to die a peaceful and pain-free death, just like his vcitims.:rolleyes:
 
lionking said:
By all means let this terrorist go to die a peaceful and pain-free death, just like his vcitims.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He didn't do it. But that's beside the point. If we resort to torture, basically, we're little better than the terrorists whose actions we claim to despise.

Guy'll be dead in weeks. Who is he a threat to now, even if he is guilty? What good does it do anyone, what good does it do society, to let him rot to a miserable death? Does it bring back the dead? Does it deter any future would-be-terrorists? Seriously - what is the point of gloating over a dying man who's guilt is pretty contentious anyway? Unless you think society benefits from inflicting pointlessly sadistic acts on those who have wronged it, I can't see the good in making him die in prison.
 
lionking said:
Just like so many in jail.

Someone dying in a prison hospital bed is not being tortured.

I don't have any sympathy, sorry, but respect your opinion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But seriously - cui bono? What's the point of not releasing him? Of what benefit is it to society, to anyone? Keeping him in gaol clearly not a deterrent, he's certainly not a threat to anyone or anything, and he's soon dead and suffering already. What is the point of keeping him locked up?
 
volatile said:
Fair enough. But seriously - cui bono? What's the point of not releasing him? Of what benefit is it to society, to anyone? Keeping him in gaol clearly not a deterrent, he's certainly not a threat to anyone or anything, and he's soon dead and suffering already. What is the point of keeping him locked up?
Click to expand...
Justice.

Sorry that sounds OT biblical and all, but I can't bring myself to sympathise.

If our mass murderer, Martin Bryant were in the same condition, I would not want him released.

But you are closer, so do you think he will be released or not? I think it would be bad politics, so I doubt it.
 
lionking said:
Justice.

Sorry that sounds OT biblical and all, but I can't bring myself to sympathise.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "justice"? If it's karmic balance you want - and after all, that's basically what the concept of justice amounts to, even if you don't buy into the metaphysics - then, c'mon, the guy's dying of a horrible, painful cancer. What's the benefit of making him suffer more on top of that? I don't get why we should go out of our way, as a society, to be unnecessarily cruel, just for the sake of it.

There's literally no benefit to keeping him in gaol other than it supposedly makes us feel better about ourselves, about the universe. Sorry - but I can't buy into that. Making someone suffer just for our own self-satisfaction isn't something I want to be a part of.

But you are closer, so do you think he will be released or not? I think it would be bad politics, so I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Who knows. It seems to be fairly finely balanced. Given the strength of his appeal case according to the body tasked with judging it, I can see him being released.
 
Darat said:
Well some of us would be slightly more cynical and state that "The Scottish Government acts only in the interests of gaining independence for Scotland." ;)

That aside I think that considering the number of USA citizens killed in the terrorist attack it is entirely right and proper that the USA government should make whatever statements it seems fit to do regarding its opinion on the issue.

I think her words were entirely appropriate, if she had criticized the Scottish justice system that would have been inappropriate however she didn't merely expressed the USA government's opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
If this man committed the crime of attempting the murder of civilian men women and children why should he be treated in an overly humane way? Serious crimes require serious consequences.
 
volatile said:
What do you mean by "justice"? If it's karmic balance you want - and after all, that's basically what the concept of justice amounts to, even if you don't buy into the metaphysics - then, c'mon, the guy's dying of a horrible, painful cancer. What's the benefit of making him suffer more on top of that? I don't get why we should go out of our way, as a society, to be unnecessarily cruel, just for the sake of it.

There's literally no benefit to keeping him in gaol other than it supposedly makes us feel better about ourselves, about the universe. Sorry - but I can't buy into that. Making someone suffer just for our own self-satisfaction isn't something I want to be a part of.



Who knows. It seems to be fairly finely balanced. Given the strength of his appeal case according to the body tasked with judging it, I can see him being released.
Click to expand...
I don't think you should be unnessarily cruel either. Give him medication for the pain. What I don't understand is this. Why allow a terrorist to go free?
 
Cainkane1 said:
I don't think you should be unnessarily cruel either. Give him medication for the pain. What I don't understand is this. Why allow a terrorist to go free?
Click to expand...

What good does keeping a soon-dead, very possibly innocent man in gaol do? What benefit does it serve? Keeping Megrahi in gaol means that we - the British public - are paying to keep a dying man away from his family for the last weeks of his life, for no reason other than it makes us feel better that he suffer at our hand.

How can you stand behind that, in good conscience? He's no threat to anyone, he's already suffering, and freeing him has no impact whatsoever on the likelihood of future attacks. Your line of thinking is simply self-gratifying, and sadistically self-gratifying at that.
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
Serious crimes require serious consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I have to ask a serious question: why do they? Why do you think "serious crimes require serious consequences"? What rational, considered reasons can we use to justify punishments? What end do you consider these consequences to serve? And how would allowing Megrahi the right to die in Libya with his family negate those goals?
 
Last edited:
Lionking and Cainkane are arguing on the basis of Megrahi's guilt being certain. I'm not sure what the basis is for that certainty. I hope nobody is so naive as to think that every court verdict is always 100% in line with the actual truth of what happened. Agreed, there are some "smoking gun" situations where there is really no doubt whatsoever, but I cannot see that this is one of them. Indeed, if you look at the number of people who have studied the case in detail and and have no particular axe to grind, and who are of the opinion that he either didn't do it or probably didn't do it, I think you have to conclude that the case doesn't actually meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standards of proof. In addition, there was an outstanding appeal based on actual evidence, which Megrahi was only persuaded to abandon yesterday because he had been persuaded that to do so would improve his chances of getting back to Libya. So I don't agree that one can simply look at his legal status as "convicted" and then proceed to judgement on the certainty of his guilt.

So my view is that there is a possibility he didn't do it, and indeed a reasonable possibility he didn't do it. And he's dying of a horrible painful disease, and it's his dearest wish to see his home and his wife and children again - and even more so his elderly mother who is too frail to visit him in Scotland.

If indeed he didn't so it, then it's only just that he be granted this wish, however it's organised in legal terms. And even if he did do it, then what are the practical reasons for not letting him go home? He's certainly not going to bomb any more airliners. The only argument is an abstract sense of justice - exactly the same sense of justice that demands his release, if he didn't do it.

Now if we keep an innocent man to die in prison, we commit a heinous injustice, and there is no mitigating factor. If on the other hand we release a terminally ill guilty man, the injustice of that is at least tempered by mercy shown to a dying man, no matter how great a monster.

Let him go already, Kenny.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
One aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned is that even if Megrahi did plant the bomb, he planted it as an agent of Libyan intelligence, presumably with the knowlege and consent of his superiors. Libya has paid (or agreed to pay) compensation to the victims, has sworn off state sponsored terrorism and is now the West's BFF again.
Since the punishment of the instigator of the attack has been completed and no further action is contemplated, it doesn't seem just to deny Megrahi his last couple of months home with his family.
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
If this man committed the crime of attempting the murder of civilian men women and children why should he be treated in an overly humane way? Serious crimes require serious consequences.
Click to expand...

Putting aside his guilt or innocence, I would think showing humanity to someone like this would surely demonstrate and reinforce the difference between civilised nations and terrorists?

I don't think anything is to be gained by further punishing the man, and it would potential be a small PR gain for the 'West'?

If this 'War on Terror' really is a battle for hearts and minds then maybe the only way to win is to be overly humane? Certainly don't think it will help to keep a dying man in jail
 
I have no objection to Hillary Clinton saying what she thinks. I have no objection to Kenny MacAskill listening to Hillary Clinton. I have no objection to Kenny MacAskill taking anything Hillary Clinton says into consideration. However, I have every objection to Kenny MacAskill caving in to pressure from Hillary Clinton just because she's American. I hope he doesn't do that.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom