Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?

release al-Megrahi from prison or not?

  • al-Megrahi should die in a Scottish prison serving his sentence

    Votes: 61 37.4%
  • Transfer al-Megrahi to a Libyan jail to continue his sentence at home

    Votes: 19 11.7%
  • Release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds

    Votes: 83 50.9%

  • Total voters
    163
I thought the most interesting bit was his rejection of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, seemed to be saying it was a bit of dodgy dealing by the UK govt rather than a genuine legal agreement (?).
 
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? :confused:

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
 
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 ... :D
 
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 ... :D

But they arn't when it's simply an oil deal. I believe the correct word is "hypocrites."
 
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? :confused:

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

I think they released him on compassionate grounds in order to avoid option 2 which would have involved the publication of further info about the event and subsequent investigation.
 
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).
 
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! :rolleyes:

...although as I said earlier, I don't think the Americans were doing any more than making a public show of opposition.

I'm sure it suits their ends nicely to have been able to publically denounce the decision whilst I presume they'll also reep the wider benefits of improved relations with Libya.
 
[...] why should he be shown compassion? he never showed any and does it know mean that all terminally ill inmates should be released? :confused:
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.
 
By not murdering multiple people, surely the justice system is holding itself to a higher standard?
True. And it shouldn't judge any of its actions by whether Megrahi would reciprocate. Compassion isn't something earned but something given.
 
True. And it shouldn't judge any of its actions by whether Megrahi would reciprocate. Compassion isn't something earned but something given.

I agree.

I believe Mr al-Megrahi would have been treated with compassion had he remained in prison for the rest of his natural life.
 
Can anyone think of any other examples in which the state is supposedly "compassionate", ie. in which they treat people better than they deserve?
 
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?

Gordon Brown
BP
Shell
BG Group

Personally, I don't care if he's released or not. I object to either the naivety or the hypocracy of those who think this has anything to do with compassion.

It's all about the oil.
 
Can anyone think of any other examples in which the state is supposedly "compassionate", ie. in which they treat people better than they deserve?

That is rather a weighted argument though isn't it and also depends of how you define compassionate- one persons compassion is another's practicality is another's letter of the law

For instance some would claim Maxine Carr was treated compassionately by being moved to a secret location after her release. Indeed some may argue that her release itself was compassionate and that she was being treated "better than they deserve" as you put it.

Or, to pick an easier example, Ronnie Biggs, as Danny said ^^^
 
Maxine Carr wasn't protected out of compassion but for reasons of public order.

Does anyone have any other examples? Should the state be (more) compassionate in other areas? What on earth does it mean, anyway?
 
Back
Top Bottom