Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?

[Azrael]

"While we do need to punish there is something else in the human heart that should be as strong and that is mercy."

As a supporter of austere prisons I agree completely. Punishment should never tip over into vengeance. If no useful purpose will be served by Megrahi's continued imprisonment then he should be cut loose.

The Guardian poster who mentioned deterrence needs to think again (to be fair, they did question if it works). Deterrence only works against certain types of criminal. Ideologically-driven terrorists like Megrahi won't be deterred by anything, and never have been. Protection of the public and retribution are the only relevant criteria here, and neither now applies.

 

[weltweit]

I wonder what will happen when he does die.

Will he get something like a state funeral in Libya or something more restrained?

 

[Azrael]

I'm not up on Libya's policy on state funerals, but given the disgusting (and predictable) welcome organised for Megrahi's return, I wouldn't rule it out.

 

[weltweit]

You see Azrael you confuse me. I am pretty sure some posts back you said you agreed with capital punishment for murder, and you believe in austere prisons, yet you seem comfortable with the fact that al-Megrahi has been released on compassionate grounds.

I would have thought that someone who believes in the death penalty would be comfortable with someone dying behind bars.

 

[Azrael]

You see Azrael you confuse me.

Thanks, I try.

I would have thought that someone who believes in the death penalty would be comfortable with someone dying behind bars.

The circumstances and manner of the death inside are everything. You know the exact time you'll hang, allowing you to prepare, whereas death from a terminal illness is unpredictable. An execution will be painless and swift, instead of the indeterminate suffering that precedes death from disease. And above all, an execution is a civilised act of retribution, a declaration that they've given up their right to live. Increasing someone's suffering as they die from a natural condition is just savage. There's no moral content, just cruelty.

The curio isn't why a supporter of capital punishment is uncomfortable with a terminally ill murderer dieing behind bars, but why many its opponents aren't.

 

[danny la rouge]

The curio isn't why a supporter of capital punishment is uncomfortable with a terminally ill murderer dieing behind bars, but why many its opponents aren't.

Indeed.

 

[rekil]

Increasing someone's suffering as they die from a natural condition is just savage.

So is murdering people for crimes they didn't commit. There are serious doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt in case you hadn't noticed. Noxious twat.

 

[detective-boy]

No, I'm not, all I'm saying is that my hypothesis doesn't account for it.

You are ... as you have just proved again with that sentence ...

It matters not whether or not your hypothesis accounts for it if it is not connected.

I agree it is a line of enquiry which should have been followed (and may have been for all I know - statements that it wasn't are particularly convincing on their own).

 

[detective-boy]

Sorry - I really cannot accept that position.

Then you will be disappointed frequently when it comes to cases built on circumstantial evidence where they cannot be distilled down into concise soundbites for the media. As I said, you can criticise particular aspects of the evidence but without knowing how the whole case was hung together you cannot give a proper, informed opinion on whether or not it fatally damages the whole verdict.

 

[Azrael]

So is murdering people for crimes they didn't commit. There are serious doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt in case you hadn't noticed. Noxious twat.

Try that post without the needless abuse and I'll reply.

 

[detective-boy]

They're all speaking from the basis that he's guilty as sin, and the question is merely "was this bad for Scotland? was it within the remit of the Scottish government to release this evil terrorist?"

They can't speak on any other basis: he stands convicted, his appeals failed and he has withdrawn his latest appeal. He IS guilty (unless you are happy for acquitted people to be treated as guilty if "we" know better ... which I presume you are not).

The reliability of his conviction is an entirely seperate issue.

 

[T & P]

They can't speak on any other basis: he stands convicted, his appeals failed and he has withdrawn his latest appeal. He IS guilty (unless you are happy for acquitted people to be treated as guilty if "we" know better ... which I presume you are not).

The reliability of his conviction is an entirely seperate issue.

A lot of us however don't always take court veredicts as absolute and final thuth- in particular in cases where it is plainly obvious that a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Al-Megrahi is as guilty of the Pan Am bombing as those five fascist cunts were innocent of the murder of Stephen Lawrence- regardless of what the Courts ruled or failed to rule.

 

[Fruitloop]

Then you will be disappointed frequently when it comes to cases built on circumstantial evidence where they cannot be distilled down into concise soundbites for the media. As I said, you can criticise particular aspects of the evidence but without knowing how the whole case was hung together you cannot give a proper, informed opinion on whether or not it fatally damages the whole verdict.

You have to admit though that this case was particularly suspect. I mean you don't normally get witnesses claiming after the trial that the CIA offered to bung them a huge wedge of money, or where one of the lab scientists later describes the lab itself as 'a crime scene'.

 

[quimcunx]

A lot of us however don't always take court veredicts as absolute and final thuth- in particular in cases where it is plainly obvious that a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Al-Megrahi is as guilty of the Pan Am bombing as those five fascist cunts were innocent of the murder of Stephen Lawrence- regardless of what the Courts ruled or failed to rule.

This doesn't alter the fact that:

They can't speak on any other basis: he stands convicted, his appeals failed and he has withdrawn his latest appeal.

He IS guilty (unless you are happy for acquitted people to be treated as guilty if "we" know better ... which I presume you are not).

The reliability of his conviction is an entirely seperate issue.

However he was ''found guilty'' which is not the same as ''guilty''. If he didn't do it he is not guilty, whatever a court found.

Anyway, as they were bound to act on the basis of him being convicted, surely for the purposes of this thread he is guilty and the question is about compassionate release not wrongful convicition.

 

[MikeMcc]

This doesn't alter the fact that:





However he was ''found guilty'' which is not the same as ''guilty''. If he didn't do it he is not guilty, whatever a court found.

Anyway, as they were bound to act on the basis of him being convicted, surely for the purposes of this thread he is guilty and the question is about compassionate release not wrongful convicition.

Not in my view - the man was wrongly convicted. Not only was it the compassionate thing to do it was the just thing to do. That's something that is actually more of a cornerstone of the Scots justice system than it is of the English one, where there is a more slavish application of the law, come what may. It's a key distinction. One of the questions asked early in the thread was if we would feel the same about someone such as Rose West of Ian Huntley had a terminal condition. Personally I would feel different about that because there is so little doubt about their guilt and lack of remorse.

I have no doubt that if his 2nd appeal had gone ahead, his conviction would have been quashed.

 

[MikeMcc]

You are ... as you have just proved again with that sentence ...

It matters not whether or not your hypothesis accounts for it if it is not connected.

I agree it is a line of enquiry which should have been followed (and may have been for all I know - statements that it wasn't are particularly convincing on their own).

But it does act to cast doubt on a case that is based solely on circumstantial evidence and dis-credited witness testimony.

 

[quimcunx]

Not in my view - the man was wrongly convicted. Not only was it the compassionate thing to do it was the just thing to do. That's something that is actually more of a cornerstone of the Scots justice system than it is of the English one, where there is a more slavish application of the law, come what may. It's a key distinction. One of the questions asked early in the thread was if we would feel the same about someone such as Rose West of Ian Huntley had a terminal condition. Personally I would feel different about that because there is so little doubt about their guilt and lack of remorse.

I have no doubt that if his 2nd appeal had gone ahead, his conviction would have been quashed.

Not in your view what?

Where did McAskill say he was releasing him because he was innocent or because McAskill reckoned he was probably innocent? Where is the bit in Scottish Law that says a minister is allowed to release someone because the minister reckons they're innocent regardless of the courts of law?





I have no idea whether Rose West or Ian Huntely are remorseful or otherwise. I'd probably still release them if they were terminally ill.

 

[ericjarvis]

Americans didn't seem that bothered about terrorists when the IRA were rattling collection tins....funny that

Wrong kind of terrorists. The IRA didn't kill Americans so they weren't real terrorists.

 

[DexterTCN]

I agree with the decision to release him. Not because he is dying but because his imprisonment shamed us.

I mean...I know that a lot of these arguments tend to start falling one side v another along political/social/etc.etc. experience and convictions. I see it partly as a big pair of balls from the SNP. They've just given themselves half the audience whereas before they had 20-30% probably, brilliant move nationally. All the unionists are ganging up and singing from the same hymnsheet. And in the Year of Homecoming too.....risking the alienation of one of your major allies/customers/supporters....that's in your face.

I see it as one of the absolute high points of the century, along with beating France home and away. Sorry....flippant there but it's massive, really.

What i mean is...it's a big thing to do it, it would have been very easy not to do it. A mouse roaring.

The American reaction is split into utter confusion and screams about freedom-fries. Maybe we can get Bill O'Reilly and George Galloway to have a debate.

 

[rioted]

Americans didn't seem that bothered about terrorists when the IRA were rattling collection tins....funny that

Or when they (the americans) shot that Iranian airliner out of the sky. Who's doing time for that one?

 

[quimcunx]

Or when they (the americans) shot that Iranian airliner out of the sky. Who's doing time for that one?

It is rather hard to get het up about justice not being served when all these ''terrorist hotbeds'' never seem to get justice for wrongs committed against them by us/US/Europe.

 

[DexterTCN]

Or when they (the americans) shot that Iranian airliner out of the sky. Who's doing time for that one?

Up until Thursday?

 

[rioted]

Where did McAskill say he was releasing him because he was innocent or because McAskill reckoned he was probably innocent? Where is the bit in Scottish Law that says a minister is allowed to release someone because the minister reckons they're innocent regardless of the courts of law?

But it was part of the deal - you drop the appeal and we'll let you out on compassionate grounds. Saves stuff coming to light in court that the UK and America would rather keep hidden.

 

[rioted]

Up until Thursday?

Up until any time.

 

[Wookey]

Punishment should never tip over into vengeance.

And above all, an execution is a civilised act of retribution...

I is confuzed.

 

[Azrael]

Or when they (the americans) shot that Iranian airliner out of the sky. Who's doing time for that one?

No one, since the crew of the USS Vincennes mistook it for an F-14 fighter plane. Intent is just as important as the act in criminal law, and unlike the crew of the Vincennes, Megrahi intended, with extreme premeditation, to murder the passengers of Pan Am 103. There's no comparison between his act of mass murder and a tragic mistake.

The first President Bush's unhinged statement that, "I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are," obviously didn't help matters one iota, but I don't see why that should reflect on other Americans who are understandably angry about the murder of their fellow citizens.

 

[weltweit]

Did America ever pay compensation to the Iranian families affected?

 

[Azrael]

About $300,000 per victim, if I remember right.

 

[laptop]

About $300,000 per victim, if I remember right.

Would that be at the official exchange rate, or someone's estimate of purchasing power parity?

 

[MikeMcc]

Not in your view what?

Where did McAskill say he was releasing him because he was innocent or because McAskill reckoned he was probably innocent? Where is the bit in Scottish Law that says a minister is allowed to release someone because the minister reckons they're innocent regardless of the courts of law?





I have no idea whether Rose West or Ian Huntely are remorseful or otherwise. I'd probably still release them if they were terminally ill.

It was good enough for SCCRC to refer the case back for appeal. Not something they do for jollies.

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293