Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

I can't hear the bloody questions, only the replies. What's the BBC playing at?

Rolfe.
 
There was a bit, but I wouldn't say "full of".

He's now saying that the decision to drop the appeal was entirely Megrahi's own.

And is that a pig I see taking off from Prestwick?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Megrahi has now been allowed out on compassionate grounds.

Congratulations to the Scottish government for standing up to the US government pressure. I note the sky has not fallen in. Quelle surprise.

Perhaps the UK government will take notice that it does not have to slavishly follow anything the US government urges. Time to throw out the extradition agreement and get something more equitible.
 
Rolfe said:
There was a bit, but I wouldn't say "full of".

...snip...
Click to expand...

Bah that's all the first half was about.... I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree on this point... ;)

However that aside when he got to the nub I thought he expressed it well:

...snip..

Mr al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.

But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Our justice system demands that judgement be imposed, but compassion be available.

Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs the we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people - no matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Ok, let me jus say this: I just read this in the news and the first thought that came to my mind when I read that they were considering on releasing a terrorist was not that it was wrong because of some Karmic Punishment Deserved mumbo jumbo. The first thing that came to my mind (aside from the natural feeling that I thought he should finish his sentence) was: Why are we putting a terrorist free?

Understand, it's very simple math: Dangerous man who has already killed many innocent people, put free.

Hello? Danger?
Yeah, so he has cancer. So what? You can do a lot of dangerous, threatening things while having cancer. The sky is the limit (pun not intended).

Yeah, I think he should stay there and finish his sentence.
I echo what others have said: If this was Bin Laden or Hussein, we wouldn't be having th9si conversation.
 
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." ;)
Click to expand...
Then you would be talking nonsense I'm afraid. But that is your right.

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...

The USA is entitled to its opinion but many over here regard what the US and Clinton tried to do as not far from bullying.

Some found her complaint hypocritical considering the leniency that the US has provided to people like the captain of the Vincennes who was awarded a medal after shooting down a plane full of civilians and Lieut Caley who was treated very leniently after personally murdering a two year old child in Vietnam amongst many other acts of terror. But the US is entitled to be hypocritical as often as it likes as it so often demonstrates.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Ok, let me jus say this: I just read this in the news and the first thought that came to my mind when I read that they were considering on releasing a terrorist was not that it was wrong because of some Karmic Punishment Deserved mumbo jumbo. The first thing that came to my mind (aside from the natural feeling that I thought he should finish his sentence) was: Why are we putting a terrorist free?

Understand, it's very simple math: Dangerous man who has already killed many innocent people, put free.

Hello? Danger?
Yeah, so he has cancer. So what? You can do a lot of dangerous, threatening things while having cancer. The sky is the limit (pun not intended).

Yeah, I think he should stay there and finish his sentence.
I echo what others have said: If this was Bin Laden or Hussein, we wouldn't be having th9si conversation.
Click to expand...

If UBL or Hussein had been in prison in Scotland then we would indeed be having this discussion.
 
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...

Compassion is what tends to distinguish humane societies from terrorist societies. Luckily Scotland is showing the compassion the US government and many on this thread clearly have no time for.
 
Last edited:
E.J.Armstrong said:
Then you would be talking nonsense I'm afraid. But that is your right.

...snip...
Click to expand...

And here I was thinking the intention of the current Scottish government was to secure independence for Scotland.

E.J.Armstrong said:
The USA is entitled to its opinion but many over here regard what the US and Clinton tried to do as not far from bullying.
Click to expand...

Over where? Certainly I've not heard one single comment from the Scottish government that they consider her comments as an attempt to bully them.

E.J.Armstrong said:
Some found her complaint hypocritical considering the leniency that the US has provided to people like the captain of the Vincennes who was awarded a medal after shooting down a plane full of civilians and Lieut Caley who was treated very leniently after personally murdering a two year old child in Vietnam amongst many other acts of terror. But the US is entitled to be hypocritical as often as it likes as it so often demonstrates.
Click to expand...

Then they would be talking nonsense I'm afraid. But that is their right.
 
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...

Because decent democratic societies do not stoop to the standards of terrorists. They hold themselves to a higher standard.
 
Wow, I didn't know that convicted terrorists get such good treatment in Scottish prisons.

With his health weighing as a potentially decisive factor in the case, the Libyan government arranged for one of Britain’s top cancer specialists, Dr. Karol Sikora, to examine him in late July, together with a Libyan cancer specialist. On Wednesday, Dr. Sikora called for an urgent decision in the case, saying that Mr. Megrahi “has only a very short period of time to live.”
Click to expand...

What does your average Scottish burgler get if he gets cancer in prison?

Linky:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/europe/21lockerbie.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
 
You don't think that the international interest in this case should make any difference? I wonder why foreign politicians are commenting then ?
 
Are the prisons in Scotland so horrible he wasn't comfortable? I don't see why keeping him there was inhumane. If he indeed was found guilty (although, I have little knowledge of Scottish courts or this case, so I can't really offer an educated opinion on that) and sentenced to life in prison, he should be there for the rest of his life. That is why it is called "life in prison".

There is a big difference between dying in prison and being tortured to death. One is part of the penalty for a horrible crime. The other is being barbaric.

And what is wrong with the US government offering an opinion about the status of someone convicted of murdering Americans? Were there sanctions threatened or anything?
 
Darat said:
And here I was thinking the intention of the current Scottish government was to secure independence for Scotland.
Click to expand...
then why didn't you say that instead of what you actually claimed, which was '..."The Scottish Government acts only in the interests of gaining independence for Scotland." ...'? Unfortunately that was and remains nonsense.

Over where? Certainly I've not heard one single comment from the Scottish government that they consider her comments as an attempt to bully them.
Click to expand...
In Scotland, by commentators on Scottish television. What happens in the US is no guide to what happens in the world I'm afraid.

Then they would be talking nonsense I'm afraid. But that is their right.
Click to expand...
Unlike your own claim they would be completely accurate. The US government is well known for lying to the world, such as Powell's deeply embarrassing performance in front of the UN over the non-existent WMD in Iraq. But the US can decide for itself how much to lie to the world. That is their right.

Scotland has decided not to pay any attention to the US government because it has no duty to the US government - only to its own people. If the US wants to be vindictive to its own people in the USA feel free.

The US government gave us the still open Guantanamo torture camp and thinks it can arrest anyone, anywhere in the world and keep them locked up forever without the need for a trial so you will forgive us laughing at the US talking about other countries and their judicial system. Especially as all the people who authorised, facilitated and carried put the US torture programme are wandering about the USA completely free and unfettered in any way.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Wow, I didn't know that convicted terrorists get such good treatment in Scottish prisons.



What does your average Scottish burgler get if he gets cancer in prison?

Linky:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/europe/21lockerbie.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Click to expand...


Renowned cancer specialist he may be, but he still lies about where he works...

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/05/imperial-college-disowns-karol-sikora.html

And they would never give someone like... Ronnie Biggs for example... compassionate release. Oh hang on...
 
Darat said:
Bah that's all the first half was about.... I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree on this point... ;)
Click to expand...


Actually, I missed the beginning of the speech, and I later heard a commentator saying that it might as well have been delivered from the pulpit, so I'm prepared to accept your evaluation of that.

Rolfe.
 
Is this case being reported in the US as if it is just a case of a convicted terrorist being released on compassionate grounds? because that's the impression I am getting from US posters. You do realise that there is a strong likelyhood that the man is innocent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom