Should convicted Libyan terrorist have been released?
- Thread starter andyandy
- Start date
MikeSun5
Trigger Happy Pacifist,
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
I saw a brother of a guy who died on that flight speak on the news yesterday. He said the terrorist was being released so he could spend the rest of his dying days with his family. He then said his brother never got that option.
I think that d-bag should stay in jail. Have his family come visit him.
I think that d-bag should stay in jail. Have his family come visit him.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Since it seems likely he didn't actually do it after all, yes, release him.
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
Leaving to one side questions as to whether or not he is actually guilty (I don't know enough about the legal case itself) I don't think that he should have been released. It is quite a complex situation however.
Firstly, assuming that he is guilty, he really hasn't spent that long in jail. If it was the same situation but with the chap already having served (say) 30 years already, then I might be more amenable to a compassionate release.
Second, there are ways of showing compassion without complete release. We could have set up a house arrest in Scotland which would have allowed close family time to spend with their dying relative. We could have arranged a prisoner transfer to Libya, where he would serve out the remainder of his sentence close to his family.
Thirdly, you can't separate the individual considerations from the political ramifications of the release. The scenes at the Libyan airport were pretty appalling. Cheering crowds, waving flags, triumphant arms aloft and even confetti for heavens sake! This is still a man who has been found legally guilty of responsibility for killing 270 people, likely at the behest of the same political leader who is now smiling and waving with him for the cameras. It is hard to imagine a more distasteful image. Certainly it appears as a propaganda coup for the Libyan government and a public relations own goal by Scotland.
Firstly, assuming that he is guilty, he really hasn't spent that long in jail. If it was the same situation but with the chap already having served (say) 30 years already, then I might be more amenable to a compassionate release.
Second, there are ways of showing compassion without complete release. We could have set up a house arrest in Scotland which would have allowed close family time to spend with their dying relative. We could have arranged a prisoner transfer to Libya, where he would serve out the remainder of his sentence close to his family.
Thirdly, you can't separate the individual considerations from the political ramifications of the release. The scenes at the Libyan airport were pretty appalling. Cheering crowds, waving flags, triumphant arms aloft and even confetti for heavens sake! This is still a man who has been found legally guilty of responsibility for killing 270 people, likely at the behest of the same political leader who is now smiling and waving with him for the cameras. It is hard to imagine a more distasteful image. Certainly it appears as a propaganda coup for the Libyan government and a public relations own goal by Scotland.
MikeSun5
Trigger Happy Pacifist,
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
huh? I guess I need to do some more reading...You suppose he's completely innocent? Even if he was just a co-conspirator, I think he deserved the past 30 years in jail for helping kill 270 humans.
If he was completely innocent, of course he should be free. Of course if he had nothing to do with it, I wonder how they even got him. Scotland just extradited two random dudes from Libya?
Last edited:
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
Despite having designed the poll answers, none of them quite match my own opinion. I think that house arrest in Scotland may have been the best option, given that it is clear that any release back to Libya even under a prisoner transfer would have been exploited by the Libyan regime. Barring that, he could have remained in jail with greater visiting access for relatives.
I think the Scottish justice system is fair and not corrupt, so in the absense of compelling evidence that Megrahi is not guilty, I'm going with the verdict.
No, he should have not been released. The propaganda boost this gives to terrorists cannot be underestimated. And didn't he look better getting off the plane than getting on?
No, he should have not been released. The propaganda boost this gives to terrorists cannot be underestimated. And didn't he look better getting off the plane than getting on?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Good point. On one hand we have folks saying that the release shows the fairness and compassion of the Scottish government, while these same folks call the trial a miscarriage of justice. Which is it?
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
I'm happy fo him to be released on compassionate grounds, but I think whatever pressure was put on him to drop his appeal was wrong. This way we will not find out the truth.
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
The BBC has an article on the doubts regarding Megrahi's guilt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8211596.stm
I can't say I'm convinced one way or another. I'm disappointed that the appeal won't be going through and that no other test of the new evidence seems likely. (Well... I'm sure there will be documentaries and the like, but that really isn't good enough). Both sides say no deal was done, but that doesn't resolve doubt over Megrahi's guilt.
As for what should have happened...
I agree with Andy. Some kind of house arrest, which would allow Megrahi to stay with his family but wouldn't actually free him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8211596.stm
I can't say I'm convinced one way or another. I'm disappointed that the appeal won't be going through and that no other test of the new evidence seems likely. (Well... I'm sure there will be documentaries and the like, but that really isn't good enough). Both sides say no deal was done, but that doesn't resolve doubt over Megrahi's guilt.
As for what should have happened...
I agree with Andy. Some kind of house arrest, which would allow Megrahi to stay with his family but wouldn't actually free him.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'd like to vote for both 1 and 2, but the poll isn't set up that way.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
As I understand it, a miscarriage of justice is simply when the court comes up with the wrong verdict. It doesn't of itself imply that the trial was biased -- ie: it allows for honest mistakes.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think that's exactly the point. Remember, a criminal conviction has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". I don't think any of us can possibly say he didn't do it. But what seems to me fairly clear is that there are wodges and stacks of extremely reasonable doubt. This makes the conviction unsafe in anybody's book.
It reminds me a bit of the Barry George affair. There was an enormous amount of reasonable doubt about his guilt, but there was also a lot of pressure to pin that murder on someone. It took at least two appeals before he was released.
In saying that he shouldn't have been convicted I'm not saying I have some supernatural insight into the truth, I'm just observing that the standards of proof for a criminal conviction do not appear to have been met.
Rolfe.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
I can understand honest mistakes in any trial I just don't think the Scottish government should have agreed that no one else in Libya would be sought for the bombing in exchange for Megrahi and Fhimah.
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
While I agree with what you wrote, I assume you meant to say overestimated, and I don't understand it, it's standard procedure. If someone commits a terrorist act at the behest of an organisation that is or becomes a recognised government, then they stop being a terrorist. Libya is no longer regarded as a sponsor of terror we're friends again, Sinn Fein is in government in Norn Iron, the UK recognises the US government etc. etc.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
I just say Gadaffi......
Rolfe
Adult human female
I posted this in the other thread, if you already read it, feel free to skip.
One thing all the posts taking this line are forgetting. Let's for a minute ignore our huge doubts about Megrahi's guilt. Let's assume the conviction was sound (though how that can be, if it was specifically stated that he couldn't have done it without his co-accused, but then the co-accused was found not guilty, sort of excapes me....)
Megrahi's involvement in this was as a low-level operative. He didn't decide out of his own little head to blow up an airliner. He didn't come up with the plan all by himself.
If it did happen the way the prosecution said, it was by way of the Libyan government and specifically Gadaffi deciding to do it, then instructing its employees (including but not limited to Megrahi) to go odd and carry out the plan. This is absolutely borne out by the fact that the Libyan government paid out millions in compensation to the families of the victims.
So how come everybody is slavering for Megrahi's blood, but we're all now bestest friends with Gadaffi? He gets to have talks with Tony Blair and ambassadors and attend summit meetings and we're all just so pleased to be on good terms with him now....
If the Camp Zeist verdict is correct, then it was Gaddafi who decided to carry out the atrocity, planned and ordered it.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
Rolfe.
One thing all the posts taking this line are forgetting. Let's for a minute ignore our huge doubts about Megrahi's guilt. Let's assume the conviction was sound (though how that can be, if it was specifically stated that he couldn't have done it without his co-accused, but then the co-accused was found not guilty, sort of excapes me....)
Megrahi's involvement in this was as a low-level operative. He didn't decide out of his own little head to blow up an airliner. He didn't come up with the plan all by himself.
If it did happen the way the prosecution said, it was by way of the Libyan government and specifically Gadaffi deciding to do it, then instructing its employees (including but not limited to Megrahi) to go odd and carry out the plan. This is absolutely borne out by the fact that the Libyan government paid out millions in compensation to the families of the victims.
So how come everybody is slavering for Megrahi's blood, but we're all now bestest friends with Gadaffi? He gets to have talks with Tony Blair and ambassadors and attend summit meetings and we're all just so pleased to be on good terms with him now....
If the Camp Zeist verdict is correct, then it was Gaddafi who decided to carry out the atrocity, planned and ordered it.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
You suppose he's completely innocent? Even if he was just a co-conspirator, I think he deserved the past 30 years in jail for helping kill 270 humans.
If he was completely innocent, of course he should be free. Of course if he had nothing to do with it, I wonder how they even got him. Scotland just extradited two random dudes from Libya?
This controversy has been going on for 20 years. It's CT on a par with 9/11, but with a lot more rationality to it, and credence from many perfectly sane respected people, including a substantial number of the relatives of those who were killed.
Try this account, it's about the easiest to follow that I've seen.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html
Here is the official report relating to Megrahi being given leave to appeal, which only lets the very strongest bits of the jigsaw through its net.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_06_07_reviewlockerbie.pdf
Wikipedia has a page about it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_theories
Separate from its non-CT page, which is also interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
I merely observe that this isn't my idea of guilt proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
Rolfe.