Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

Alt+F4 said:
So you got bullied by a 61-year old woman....ah, stop your crying!
Click to expand...

Au contraire. We're not actually crying. We're celebrating. The Usan rabid right has just demonstrated to the Scottish people just how extreme it is what with its lack of compassion and lies about the NHS. The Usan right does not share our values. Values such as compassion and honesty.

Three cheers for the Scottish government.

Hip hip hooray

Hip hip hooray

Hip hip hooray.

Pip pip.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
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?
Click to expand...


It seems to me the discussion is more academic. If he is innocent, he should go free.

The discussion really seems to be about someone convicted of horrible crime with little time to live. How should that be handled? What is the purpose of a prison sentence? Where do people get their definition of "humane"?
 
Professor Yaffle said:
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?
Click to expand...

Does his claims of innocence meet the legal grounds for a new trial in Scotland? If so, then he should have gotten a new trial. If not, then yes, it's as simple folks being angry that a convicted murderer who was sentenced to life in prison is being released after only 8 years. Cancer be damned. His release has nothing to do with the possibility of his being innocent.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
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?
Click to expand...


Er, there is a thread about this in the CT section, but have a read.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html

There is no way that conviction can be held to be safe "beyond reasonable doubt". There is a great deal of extremely reasonable doubt. There is, however, also a great deal of convoluted covering up going on.

Kenny McAskill had nothing at all to do with any of this until the SNP was elected to government in 2007. Received wisdom among SNP members has tended to be that Megrahi probably didn't do it. Nevertheless Kenny has now chosen to join in the covering up. I find that extremely interesting.

However, that aside, my view is that while releasing Megrahi if he is guilty may be an affront to justice, it at least allows mercy to be well served. If, however, he is kept in prison although he is innocent, then both justice and mercy are completely screwed.

Right decision, Kenny, although I'd give a lot to have you in a very quiet spot with a set of thumbscrews....

Rolfe.
 
E.J.Armstrong said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. The speech made it very plain that the representations of both the US government and the families of the victims were canvassed; and were taken into account in making the decision along with a lot of other things.

It is not the case that no attention was paid to those things and it would not have been right to make the decision without considering the whole picture
 
Alt+F4 said:
Does his claims of innocence meet the legal grounds for a new trial in Scotland? If so, then he should have gotten a new trial. If not, then yes, it's as simple folks being angry that a convicted murderer who was sentenced to life in prison is being released after only 8 years. Cancer be damned. His release has nothing to do with the possibility of his being innocent.
Click to expand...


Look, go read up about it.

He had leave to appeal, with the grounds for appeal all set out and everything. He did not have to give up that appeal in order to receive compassionate release, but nevertheless his arm was somewhat twisted over the last few days so that he "voluntarily chose" to abandon the apeal process before he was released.

Here you go. SCCRC report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_06_07_reviewlockerbie.pdf

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Donal said:
The discussion really seems to be about someone convicted of horrible crime with little time to live. How should that be handled? What is the purpose of a prison sentence? Where do people get their definition of "humane"?
Click to expand...

It should be handled according to Scottish Law and Scottish Law allows for release on compassionate grounds.
 
E.J.Armstrong said:
The Usan right does not share our values. Values such as compassion and honesty.
Click to expand...

I don't know if Megrahi is guilty or innocent but you're delusional if you believe the British government was totally honest about what went on here or with the entire Lockerbie prosecution.

What other prisoner in a Scottish prison is allowed to have medical specialists flown in from other countries? Wake up, your government is in bed with the Libyans and don't even know it.
 
Rolfe said:
Look, go read up about it.

He had leave to appeal, with the grounds for appeal all set out and everything. He did not have to give up that appeal in order to receive compassionate release, but nevertheless his arm was somewhat twisted over the last few days so that he "voluntarily chose" to abandon the apeal process before he was released.

Here you go. SCCRC report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_06_07_reviewlockerbie.pdf

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying, but there's a big difference in releasing someone because they have terminal cancer and releasing them because they "might" be innocent.
 
Fiona said:
It should be handled according to Scottish Law and Scottish Law allows for release on compassionate grounds.
Click to expand...

I can think of 180 reasons why Americans would be concerned. But don't worry, Hillary isn't going to come over there and take all your hagis.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I don't know if Megrahi is guilty or innocent but you're delusional if you believe the British government was totally honest about what went on here or with the entire Lockerbie prosecution.

What other prisoner in a Scottish prison is allowed to have medical specialists flown in from other countries? Wake up, your government is in bed with the Libyans and don't even know it.
Click to expand...

Flown in...










all the way from.......













England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
I understand what your saying, but there's a big difference in releasing someone because they have terminal cancer and releasing them because they "might" be innocent.
Click to expand...


In principle, yes. In terms of practical politics, maybe not so much.

Rolfe.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Flown in...










all the way from.......













England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora
Click to expand...

Professor Yaffle, clean your glasses! :)

In post #74, The New York Times article I quoted said that in addition to the British cancer specialist he was also examined by a Libyan cancer specialist.

He (the British specialist) visited him on July 28 with Professor Ibrahim Sherif from the Tripoli medical centre, Libya and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul general in Scotland.
 
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle said:
So you are questioning the whole concept of release on compassionate grounds (Donal)?
Click to expand...

Ya. I'm curious as to the Scottish (or UK, whichever applies here) philosophy towards prison sentences is. Is it about punishment? Rehabilitation? Or just separating a dangerous person from society?

And why do you have life sentences if you don't keep them there for life?
 
Fiona said:
It should be handled according to Scottish Law and Scottish Law allows for release on compassionate grounds.
Click to expand...


I respect that this is a matter of Scottish law. I just want to know more about the underlying principles.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Professor Yaffle, clean your glasses! :)

In post #74, The New York Times article I quoted said that in addition to the British cancer specialist he was also examined by a Libyan cancer specialist.
Click to expand...

Well if the guy is going to go back to Libya, it makes sense that Dr Sikora would want to consult with a cancer physician from that country. At Libya's expense, I note from your article.
 
Life doesn't necessarily mean full natural life (inthe UK), even if there is no compassionate release. It is usually an indeterminate sentence with a minimum to serve tariff.

Here's a link to the various types of life sentence:
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/lifesentencedprisoners/

ETA Megrahi had a 27 year tariff - which was in the process of being appealed by the prosecution as to lenient.
 
Last edited:
E.J.Armstrong said:
...snip...

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.

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

Ah I see - you haven't heard what the Scottish justice minister actually said the Scottish government had done - try to grab hold of a transcript or catch it on our national news tonight and you'll find you are very much mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom