Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?

[FridgeMagnet]

Here's a question, d-b - under what circumstances would it ever be appropriate to conclude that the verdict of a court was exceptionally dubious or just plain wrong? Because there's no way that I'd ever have seen the entire presentation of the evidence and so on, for any case.

to be fair I'm going to bed soon anyway

 

[laptop]

a shirt in a neighbouring suitcase would be indistinguishable from a shirt in the same suitcase as the bomb.

What d-b says about analysing the explosion.

Lots of things about explosions are counter-intuitive.

And it only takes quite a small bang to bring a plane down - this one was in something like this:

and that was overkill. The shoe-bomb could have worked, had he not been so inept

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No. It wasn't. It was against conviction.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/Lockerbie-Lord-Advocate-drops-appeal.5577977.jp

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...-sentence-on-lockerbie-bomber-86908-21614162/

I think there's a bit of confusion in that it appears that two appeals were dropped; one against sentence, and his apparent second appeal of his conviction.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The point is simple: reality is what reality is ... but, as we have no way of knowing reality, we have to substitute a man-made system of establishing what actually happened. That is our syste of justice. Imperfect thoug it is, we have said that if someone is acquitted, they are not guilty, end of. If you believe in that you cannot say that someone who is convicted is innocent. If, despite his conviction, you argue that he should be treated as if he is innocent, you must also agree that anyone acquitted can be treated as guilty as fuck by those who think his acquittal is bollocks ...

The court of public opinion can swing any way. OJ is acquitted by a court, but found guilty in the court of public opinion. Megrahi is convicted, but acquitted by the court of public opinion.

Paris Hilton was convicted by a court, but the court of public opinion would have substituted a different penalty.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My point was, fairly obviously, to respond in a conversational fashion agreeing with the idea that even exposure to the basic facts makes many people think there is something dodgy about it all. .

What your friend was exposed to, was a media report about what apparently went on in the court.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You've just turned my world upside-down, Johnny.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You've just turned my world upside-down, Johnny.

That's all it takes?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I am easily upended.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I am easily upended.

My point was, how much weight do we give to the opinion of a person untrained in the law, reading a newspaper article written by a journalist with an eye more on selling newspapers than on giving a scrupulous recitation of the facts?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

...pardon?

Are you asking me how whether I suddenly consider that al-Megrahi was fitted up after hearing that my friend, whom I had asked if she would take a look at a report and to tell me what she thought, thought it was a bit dodgy?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

...pardon?

Your friend? The one who read the article and said it all sounded suspicious?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

yes

I just edited to make it a bit more clear quite what it was that I was puzzled about

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yes

I just edited to make it a bit more clear quite what it was that I was puzzled about

This is all very confusing.

 

[detective-boy]

But I suppose we can't possibly have our own opinions on the matter as we weren't there for the entire procedure.

You can have your opinions, sure. But you can't expect them to be accepted as anything other than a random opinion on whether the conviction was sound or not unless you have access to the full case and have analysed the evidence and arguments to justify your conclusion.

 

[detective-boy]

Here's a question, d-b - under what circumstances would it ever be appropriate to conclude that the verdict of a court was exceptionally dubious or just plain wrong?

There is a difference between raising concerns and issues and stating as a conclusion that the Court was wrong. We can often do the former without access to the full facts. We can rarely do the latter (unless there is some specific piece of evidence which is in the public domain and which blows the whole conviction apart in some way). In a straightforward case based on direct evidence, this is often possible. In a complex case based on circumstantial evidence this is rarely possible.

 

[Nigel]

The guardian, the times, the bbc, the indie... etc etc..
Doesn't look like all journalists and reporters agree with your point of view from the list that you have given. Fisk's articles in the Independent are very critical and some in the Guardian are cynical about about what can of worms an appeal may bring out and a genuine enquiry may show.
Urban's operating in a parallell universe on this one. Nuts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...n-and-damascus-ndash-not-tripoli-1775813.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ou-know-the-truth-about-lockerbie-396765.html

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...wn/news/world/14-lessons-from-lockerbie-zj-07

http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk....Lockerbie_bomber_to_drop_appeal_bid/?ref=rss

 

[Mung Beans]

I voted he ought to stay in prison. He was an evil mass murderer who killed many people and should suffer the psychological anguish of not seeing his family before he died. After all the victims of the Lockerbie bombing did not see their family before they were killed in the explosion. It is a disgusting action by the Scots. Also it is upsetting that the British did not listen to the US government even though the majority of victims were American.

 

[geminisnake]

Go away you troll. You have no understanding of Scots law or of compassion. If you believe that that one man was guilty of the bombing you are more brainwashed than you can imagine.

The british Govt can NOT override Scots law and had NO say in the matter. This man was the 23rd prisoner to be released on compassionate grounds this year.

Guess what?? Not everyone in the world wants to be the US lapdog.

 

[Mung Beans]

Go away you troll. You have no understanding of Scots law or of compassion. If you believe that that one man was guilty of the bombing you are more brainwashed than you can imagine.

Well we'd have to arrest Gadaffi and a whole lot of Libyan government officials if we were to arrest all the people behind the Lockerbie bombing.

The british Govt can NOT override Scots law and had NO say in the matter. This man was the 23rd prisoner to be released on compassionate grounds this year.

Which is why Scotland shouldn't have been given autonomy. Compassion for criminals cannot override justice.

Guess what?? Not everyone in the world wants to be the US lapdog.

The terrorist killed mainly American citizens so shouldn't the US have a say?

 

[quimcunx]

The terrorist killed mainly American citizens so shouldn't the US have a say?

The US did have a say.



It just didn't go the way they wanted it to.

diddums.

 

[geminisnake]

Well we'd have to arrest Gadaffi and a whole lot of Libyan government officials if we were to arrest all the people behind the Lockerbie bombing.

Which is why Scotland shouldn't have been given autonomy. Compassion for criminals cannot override justice.

The terrorist killed mainly American citizens so shouldn't the US have a say?

Same as we should arrest Bush and the US Govt for an illegal war?? What about a number of planes that the US shot down with NO repercussion or compensation offered??

How about it wasn't only compassion for the bomber but for his family?? Or should the family pay for the father's crimes?
Why should others lower themselves to be compassionless??

As quimmy says, the US had a say, diddums.

 

[MikeMcc]

Well we'd have to arrest Gadaffi and a whole lot of Libyan government officials if we were to arrest all the people behind the Lockerbie bombing.



Which is why Scotland shouldn't have been given autonomy. Compassion for criminals cannot override justice.



The terrorist killed mainly American citizens so shouldn't the US have a say?

Cretin, you obviously don't understand the concept of Justice. Try looking at this for a starter:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justice

The guy was likely to be innocent, terminally ill and unlikely to see through his appeal. It also helped with some realpolitick with dealing with Libya. I really don't like the idea of being lectured about justice from a country that tolerates torture, detention without trial, launches illegal and poorly planned wars. Remind me what punishment was given to the CO of the USS Vincennes when it shot down an Iranian airliner? Oh right he was given a medal and promoted. Lt Calley? Three years house arrest. Two faced wankers.

 

[MikeMcc]

Your arrogance in "knowing" what the truth is, despite not having access to all the evidence in any particular case, is breathtaking ...

Funnily enough I don't see or hear of many appeals over those cases.

 

[quimcunx]

Mung Bean has been banned btw folks for trolling/being firky/some other returner.

 

[MikeMcc]

Mung Bean has been banned btw folks for trolling/being firky/some other returner.

Oops, didn't notice

 

[detective-boy]

Also it is upsetting that the British did not listen to the US government even though the majority of victims were American.

They did listen. It's only upsetting because you are so fucking arrogant (as a nation) that you expect everyone to do as they're told.

Now fuck off until you can explain Guantanamo Bay, torture (despite it being absolutely banned by every international treaty and law), extraordinary rendition and all the rest of the fucking shite you are ramaging around the world doing.

(This, by the way, is what the Scottish, UK and EU governments should have said in response to the FBI twat's fuckwitted ranting ...)

 

[quimcunx]

Mung Bean has been banned btw folks for trolling/being firky/some other returner.

.

 

[Azrael]

I really don't like the idea of being lectured about justice from a country that tolerates torture, detention without trial, launches illegal and poorly planned wars.

If we're going on track record then neither country has moral authority over the other. Britain has much worse anti-terrorism laws than the USA, and while we've nothing on the scale of Guantanamo, we're no stranger to long-term detention without charge. (Detention without trial is an accepted norm, and every justice system I'm aware of has it.) Allegations of complicity with torture have recently been made, and our "security services" certainly engaged in it in Ireland. Ditto complicity in "extraordinary rendition". And of course we're as complicit as the USA in the Iraq war.

Given that little lot, we're in no position to take the moral high ground over America!

 

[weltweit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8226585.stm

Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release

Only a third of Scots believe the Lockerbie bomber should have been freed from prison last week, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested.

The ICM Research survey indicated almost three quarters thought Scotland's reputation was damaged by Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

But only 36% thought Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill should quit.

So Scots do not agree either with McAskill or with our Urban poll. Only 30% think Megrahi should have been released.

The survey found 60% thought the Scottish Government was wrong to release Megrahi, against 32% of respondents who believed it was the right decision.

Of those polled, 57% believed Megrahi should have remained in prison until he died, while 37% thought he should have been released at some point prior to his death.

Despite Mr MacAskill's insistence to the contrary, more than two thirds of those questioned - 68% - thought the decision was influenced by factors other than Megrahi's health, while only 20% believed it was made purely on compassionate grounds.

And, the majority (68%) think the decision was made on grounds other than compassion.

 

[lewislewis]

I was very confused by this issue and minded to see it as the wrong decision. I am hugely opposed to the death penalty for example, but counter-balance this with a belief that serious criminals should be locked up for good.

However I am concerned that people are speculating that the UK arranged this on the basis of oil deals. There is some confusion there as it is purely a Scottish decision, and it looks like Macaskill sprang the decision to stop the UK attempting to take a deal forward.

I'm minded to recall that somebody bombed Libya without provocation before Lockerbie happened. When taking everything into account, the compassion shown by Kenny Macaskill is somewhat admirable although I personally would not be brave enough to take the same decision were I in his shoes.

Edit- and to add, for those of us who don't want to see Libyans committing terrorist acts in the future, a warmer relationship between governments here with Libya bodes well. Part of that will have to involve 'our' side demonstrating compassion and respect, rather than imperialism as has happened in the past. We must end terrorism but we don't do it by fighting wars and bullying countries.