| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/21/2009 7:16:02 AM | I suspect the attack or wishes for the attack on PanAm 103 went right to the top.
If Gadaffi or a high ranking offical were to admit their or state sponsorship for the attack, the US could treat it as an act of war and attack Libya as they had done for the Lybian terrorist attacks on the Achilli Lowro and Berlin Disco where US citizens were killed.
If Gadaffi remains silent, and the US investigations lead back to Libya, same outcome.
Or, find a low level suspect, tell him it's a priviledge to be a martyr for the great leader, promise him 72 virgins when he goes to heaven, and we'll take care of your familiy meanwhile.
By providing a suspect, the US were put on the back foot as in the eyes of the international community the Libyans were seen to cooperate.
On the back foot it's now difficult for the US to challenge the legitimacy of the suspect as the international community will side with Libyan cooperation, especially as he would not have been tried to establish his guilt of innocense at that stage.
Gadaffi and or any other high ranking official were never going to admit any involvement by them or the state in the attack.
Yes, it may well have been a dog and pony show, but if they found him innocent it would be back to square one leaving the US with the choice of attacking Libya that would have been condemned by the international community or taking no further action and incurring the wroth of the victims families, and a victory for terrorism.
By finding him guilty, it provided closure for both parties, and the perpetrators found guilty by proxy in their absentia.
International politics is seldomly about justice but more about expediency. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/21/2009 7:28:41 AM | | The release seems to be in line with standard proceedure for compassionate release under Scottish rules........so yes, it's right. I do not beleive in making up rules, applying them to people and then changing them because it suits you. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/21/2009 1:30:22 PM | OK, so the woman who was held prisoner abroad and artificially inseminated herself to become pregnant should have remained abroad and in prison there?
Should we never campaign for the return to the UK of people who are convicted of drug-trafficking abroad? Is drug-trafficking more or less lethal than a bomb?
How about those men who were released - without trial - from Guantanamo (sp?) back to the UK? Has their guilt or innocence been tested? But we asked for them to be returned.
If we are prepared as a country to argue for the return of UK prisoners then I see no wrong in releasing on compassionate grounds any prisoner whether guilty or innocent whose life is medically to be curtailed shortly anyway. He has a shorter but whole-of-life sentence than the courts gave him. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/22/2009 11:12:13 AM | The release seems to be in line with standard proceedure for compassionate release under Scottish rules........so yes, it's right. I do not beleive in making up rules, applying them to people and then changing them because it suits you.
I think the Government are selective about when they choose to apply their rules though, and in this case there was definitely some selective processing going on or do all Scottish prisoners who are dying get released on compassionate grounds? If not, I wonder now if it means that all prisoners will be appealing to be released on compassionate grounds as a consequence? It's possible there was some compassion being shown though, since they may have suspected they had the wrong person locked up for the crime, but this was a politically orchestrated release which had wider implications than compassion.
OK, so the woman who was held prisoner abroad and artificially inseminated herself to become pregnant should have remained abroad and in prison there?
In hindsight, yes. If she was going to be facing the firing squad though, no. The more the Government intervene with sentences the less faith the public will have in the justice system.
Should we never campaign for the return to the UK of people who are convicted of drug-trafficking abroad? Is drug-trafficking more or less lethal than a bomb?
You can't really compare the two crimes, they are totally different. How can we have a fair and just Government when they can be selective about who they choose to have returned either to the UK or other countries, not necessarily on compassionate grounds, but for economic and political gain?
If we are prepared as a country to argue for the return of UK prisoners then I see no wrong in releasing on compassionate grounds any prisoner whether guilty or innocent whose life is medically to be curtailed shortly anyway. He has a shorter but whole-of-life sentence than the courts gave him.
I agree......mainly because if you are going to do that for one then it's only fair you do that for the rest. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/22/2009 1:14:57 PM | There have been over 20 people in the last few years released in Scotland on compassionate grounds, he was not the first.
As for the Labour MPs bumping their gums down south, were people not released under the Good Friday agreement, some of them who went on to kill again?
There were Saltires flying in Libya last night.
Good I say. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/22/2009 3:27:46 PM | | ......libya wanted to come in from the cold, to join the international community, they no longer wanted to be a pariah state,so a sacrificial lamb was duly found to help enable the "rebranding" of libya's regime. end of story. this fella will go home to a hero's welcome, which proves what a sham it all is. why do we deal with these arab countries? most of which, if we are honest, we only tolerate for our financial gain, certainly it isn't because of shared ideals etc. best we get our hand out of their back pockets, then maybe they might do us the service of not involving us in all the many and varied terrorist schemes that they seem to specialise in exporting. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/22/2009 3:59:47 PM | How many people sang for the release of Nelson Mandela? Wasn't he a terorist, before he became a policital prisoner? He wasn't even ill when most of us were calling for him to be released.
I believe that this Lybian guy was more a political prisoner than anything else, which is a damn shame for all of those families that suffered if the culprits were never actually caught! | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:53:00 AM | as a scot i wish to say it is with regret that our judicial system allowed this man to be set free ,but although i am fully opposed to him being sent home i have other issues not withstanding the pain and hurt of those who lost familys due to what happened
i think there could be something a bit more going on under the surface for example the break in at heathrow just after the bombing that took 12 years to come to light the involvment of hillary clinton to persuade his lawyers to drop the appeal .was this to protect bill and maggie thatcher to prevent the real truth coming out?
it begs some questions on that if nothing else
i feel shame that my country scotland who for years has been held in high esteem all over the world and particularly in the usa has with one stroke of a pen put that at risk .
270 people including scots died that day and over 200 uk servicemen and women have since died in a bid to curb terror ..i feel angry that we as a nation have undermined each and everyone of there sacrafice
so to all americans i ask please do not judge the actions of our political leaders as a true reflection of the wishes and desires of the scottish people
we do feel your pain and anger | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/23/2009 11:30:19 AM | As soon as I learned that he was being released prior to his appeal being heard, I knew that it had nothing to do with appeasing Libya.
It has everything to do with the evidence that he was presenting at that appeal, which showed that he couldn't possibly have committed the crime.
The appeal was allowed because the Scottish judges had been shown that evidence, and they informed the Scottish justice minister of its substance. Basically, the appeal would have been allowed, and he would have had grounds to claim a massive amount in compensation.
The Mail On Sunday mentioned this today. They claim that the US knew way back in 1989 that he didn't do the crime, and that the US authorities are merely making a lot of noise to appease the families of those who died. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/23/2009 12:43:51 PM | i like others before me dont know much about the original trial or the evidence. but what concerns me is what happens behind the scenes, only a couple of months ago gormless brown met gadaffi at the "solve the recession" summit, and only a just over a week ago mandy met the son off gadaffi on a boat. me being quite a cynic would guess they werent discussing the price of sand at b and q.
was he guilty? its quite irrelevant now as we will never know the ins and outs, could of been a puppet to please the trade and courts, after all gadaffi done quite well out of it as im sure the prisoners family did to. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/23/2009 1:16:06 PM | Whether he was guilty or not (and I firmly believe he wasn't) the message of 'compassion' rings around the world.
I believe it rings as loudly as the news that someone in a Muslim country has been beheaded.
I know which message I'd prefer the world to see. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/24/2009 5:43:30 AM |
I suppose we must ask ourselves whether we would prefer to live in a compassionate country or a country full of cruelty and indifference. Furthermore we should consider whether the death of any prisoner would serve any useful purpose other than to satisfy those that seek vengence.
This country shows far too much 'compassion' already as far as I'm concerned. Criminals actually laugh at our so called justice system! Enough already of the 'they just need a bit of therapy because they've had a hard life' attitude. It hasn't made the world more peaceful by making allowances. Why should we feel sorry for him all of a sudden? Although, it costs more to transport a dead body so it's probably best he went now... | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/24/2009 6:50:34 AM | No doubt, the Lockerbie bombing was a cowardly, barbaric act.
As far as I am aware, the mans conviction was not 'safe'... IF THAT IS TRUE and there is a slither of a chance that he is innocent, he should be released with compassion in the light of him only having a few months to live.. That is what a humane society should do.
Einstein said that 'technology has surpassed humanity'. I'm inclined to agree. We live in a cruel world that rewards selfishness and acts of barbarity on the world stage. If hurling nuclear weapons at each other is to be avoided then global acts of compassion should step forward and show how it's possible to 'be' compassionate. I choose to be compassionate to a dying man who 'MAY BE innocent of the crimes he is accused of'... If I am wrong in my assertion that his conviction was 'unsafe'... Then the man has removed himself from humanity by his evil actions and he should be left to die in prison. The families of the dead are owed the misery of such an uncompassionate man. | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/24/2009 7:25:00 AM | 1) If this latest release is politically engineered, should politics be allowed to govern prisoner's sentences?
The executive can pardon anyone it wants, its one of the legal atributes it has, and is a product of politcal persausion as to who gets a pardon, ( R E Lee and J Davis were given POTUS Pardons in teh 1970s without ever asked nor sought pardon, nor for that matter convicted of any crime in Federal court but hey ho!, it made good press)Americans seem to forget that the financial backers of J Brown, all Republicans, and finaced the terrorist attacks of Browne in which he committed multiple murders of both blackand white, by the use of the sword,murders, were all protected from federal prosecution by state authoritys to prevent prosecution in the first place.
Should the courts be outside of political pressure etc, yes, but its a tricky thing to set up and run them that way, for instance in the USA courts would not stop the IRA collection money in the USA to fund the terrorsist attcks on the UK mainland during teh height pof the troubles, not allow convicted terrorist to be extradited from the USA back to the UK , FBI have a short memory, thney al,so have there own defintion of what constitutes terrorism, different from how the US Courts define it in law, but most iontrestignly USMilitary Manuaels define how to conduct it, they call it something else of course.If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same.
Funny place the states, they hada civil wat where one faction did not want to govern or rule the body poolitc, but instead wanted to leave the Union, but to them, thast acivil war, you know like when the Scots want to leave the Union and we invade to prevent them..... | |
|
| |
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/24/2009 4:18:11 PM | It didn't take Madoff long to jump on the compassion wagon and let slip he is dying too 
I think the appeal would have shown his innocence (the Lockerbie one not Madoff), but he would have been dead before it came to court. He was found guilty for political reasons and released for political reasons IMO.
 | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/25/2009 10:00:02 PM | | Here's the thing ... to state that a convicted individual should be released on 'compassionate' grounds, because the individual has a terminal illness, is a bit absurd. Life IS terminal. Every convicted individual will eventually die. The sentence was 'life in prison' - not, 'life in prison, until such time as it's determined that the prisoner is mortal'. (As to the 'guilty, or not', subject - well, once must assume that there has been no new evidence that exonerates the prisoner, or you can be sure the conviction would have been reviewed.) | |
|
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/25/2009 10:46:32 PM | If you are going to road-trip and make comments on another country's legal system, then make sure you understand that system.
The UK in general, including Scotland in this particular case, has a system where a "life" sentence can expire, it isn't usually a "whole-of-life" sentence although there are one or two genuine life-sentences I can recall, usually for serial killers. A judge can specify a minimum term for that "life" sentence, whether that may be 16 years or 20 years or... And so it can be normal for a "lifer" to walk away from prison if a parole board accepts that they are no longer a danger to society.
no new evidence that exonerates the prisoner, or you can be sure the conviction would have been reviewed.)
The individual concerned was in the stage of a third appeal which a court had given him leave to make, so the court must have been told new evidence had appeared otherwise they would not have allowed that appeal. However, while a prisoner is engaged in legal proceedings they cannot be considered for the dispensation of compassion. That new evidence - of whatever validity - will now not be heard.
And at Ministerial level, any prisoner may be released on compassionate grounds, where no purpose can be seen in continuing the imprisonment (if he is guilty then he has not long enough to live to accept and apologise for his wrong-doing) and where such imprisonment could be deemed to be harsh and inhumane treatment (especially as he was imprisoned in a foreign country apart from his family). We in the UK tend to follow the New Testament not the Old - forgive thine enemies and Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself, rather than An Eye For An Eye.
Nor we do not adopt the beliefs or mindsets of those who have been found guilty.
And before casting stones, consider those held by the US in Guantanamo... not even found guilty by due process of law... | |
|
| |
| released on compassionate grounds? Lockerbie Bomber
Posted: 8/26/2009 10:40:50 AM | I bought the current issue of Private Eye today, and it was offering downloads of the Lockerbie Special it printed yonks ago........for a fiver a pop!
No thanks!
However, it did raise the matter of some of the evidence which was withheld at the trial by the prosection case, but of which the Eye and Megrahi learned later. It referred to the fact that the Maltese shopkeeper who claimed to have sold Megrahi the shirt which was found at the crash site was shown pictures of him BEFORE picking him out in a line-up - Megrahi had an alibi for the time of the sale.
Also, the professional break-in at Heathrow baggage department was covered up at the time, as were two statements from baggage handlers who claimed that two packages appeared in the luggage at Heathrow - again, Megrahi had an alibi for that, as the prosecution insisted he was not in England that day!
As for the FBI etc banging on about the lack of justice for the families, it's worth pointing out that the FBI pretty much knows who did place the bombs, so all it has to do is present that case to the world. Unfortunately, this would mean admitting that it was happy for an innocent man to go to prison! | |
|
Home
login 
