Not quite in so many words .. but he always mentioned the Scottish victims as well as the US ones and the "we're better human beings than you hysterical, vindictive yanks" sort of came through loud and clear ...I didn't hear the whole whollop, but did he at any time, while dealing with the strength of feeling in the US, mention that people in Scotland died too, and that the US has no exclusivity to outraged victimhood?
Not quite in so many words .. but he always mentioned the Scottish victims as well as the US ones and the "we're better human beings than you hysterical, vindictive yanks" sort of came through loud and clear ...
i dont really understand why he should have been released. if the arguement is that its compassionate grounds - why should he be shown compassion? he never showed any and does it know mean that all terminally ill inmates should be released?
if the arguement includes that the conviction was perhaps unsafe in the first place, then surely thats a different process? retrial or inquest etc?
think this decision was wrong
Good to see the Scottish government has a spine on them. Can you ever see the British government daring to upset its masters in Washington had the prisoner been under English jurisdiction?
LOL!
To state the obvious, a justice system should hold itself to a higher standard than a multiple murderer. And yes, I'd release all terminally ill inmates, unless there was an unacceptable security risk in doing so.[...] why should he be shown compassion? he never showed any and does it know mean that all terminally ill inmates should be released?
He may have loved his time in the spotlight, but he made the right decision.
(*I met MacAskill on a number of occasions during the anti poll tax campaign. I have never liked him, even when he's right).
He was banged up overnight for being D&D IIRC.
True. And it shouldn't judge any of its actions by whether Megrahi would reciprocate. Compassion isn't something earned but something given.By not murdering multiple people, surely the justice system is holding itself to a higher standard?
I can't cast stones in that direction. I more refer to his swing to the right, his being a born again puritan, and a bombastic twat.He was banged up overnight for being D&D IIRC.
True. And it shouldn't judge any of its actions by whether Megrahi would reciprocate. Compassion isn't something earned but something given.
Excellent!Not quite in so many words .. but he always mentioned the Scottish victims as well as the US ones and the "we're better human beings than you hysterical, vindictive yanks" sort of came through loud and clear ...
Excellent!
What and who is hypocritical?Excellently hypocritical.
What and who is hypocritical?
Between whom?This is a deal for oil and nothing else. Anyone who is dressing this up as anything else is hypocritical.
Between whom?
And who was being hypocritical?
He wasn't repatriated under the prisoner transfer treaty; he was released on compassionate grounds under existing Scots Law.It's all about the oil (as usual):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/19/ministers-pushed-lockerbie-treaty-libya
He wasn't repatriated under the prisoner transfer treaty; he was released on compassionate grounds under existing Scots Law.
Who were the parties to the deal? And even if it did exist, why was the treaty not used, and do you think the decision incorrect?He was repatriated in an under the table deal to get BP an oil pipeline.
Ronnie Biggs was recently released on compassionate grounds. There have been numerous examples.Can anyone think of any other examples in which the state is supposedly "compassionate", ie. in which they treat people better than they deserve?
Ronnie Biggs was recently released on compassionate grounds. There have been numerous examples.
Who were the parties to the deal? And even if it did exist, why was the treaty not used, and do you think the decision incorrect?
Can anyone think of any other examples in which the state is supposedly "compassionate", ie. in which they treat people better than they deserve?