Printable View
The only person ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has just been released from prison on compassionate grounds.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/heros...0821-esca.html
What are all your thoughts on this?
Lastly, there is a comment within the article above that states: British families believe the Libyan is innocent and supported his release. I find this weird. Can someone from the UK comment on this?
Despite my liberal tendencies, he should have stayed in prison.
I certainly haven't been following this and know very little about it.
However a simple wikipedia search gives details about why some people believe that he was innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelba...med_Al_Megrahi
I'm aware that some people consider him innocent, or that there was a miscarriage of justice at the least. The statement from the article does not say this though. It says: British families believe the Libyan is innocent
I view this as a rather broad sweeping comment, being British families, and thus was asking for clarification.
The issue is contentious here, mostly everyone I know believes him to be innocent but there are many still who believe the conviction was correct.
I personally don't know enough about the trial/case/whatever so I assume that the verdict of guilt by trained law professionals to be just.
Saying that, the man has months to live, and by my government showing him the compassion that he did not show to his victims I believe we show ourselves to be more human and more humane than he could ever be.
I think it was the right decision to send him home to die, but fully understand why many people will be upset about it.
I would recommend watching Kenny MacAskill MSP'S speech about it, as he put it more eloquently than I can.
I'm Brittish. I'm part of a family of sorts. I believe he should've died in prison.
Having not been part of the bombing or part of the legal proceedings so I can't say for sure that he was guilty. However, he's been tried and convicted in a court of law the same way anyone else would be in the UK and sentanced accordingly.
I really don't buy this "Compassionate grounds" bullcrap either. If we let him out then why not let out everyone on death-row?They're mostly murderers with an approximate date of death, the only difference is it's the State and not a disease that kills people on death-row.
I saw on BBC news this morning he served something like a month for each life he ended. So that's the punnishment per murder - one month in prison?
He was let out on compassionate grounds as outlined in Scots Law, everyone is entitled to apply for it and it's judged case by case.
The fact that Scotland doesn't have a death row, is probably the biggest reason "we" don't let everyone on death row out.
Scotland is a compassionate nation, we pride ourselves on our humanity, even when we may not be shown any.
By showing compassion to he who has shown none, we rise above his level.
‘The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.’
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I know Scotland has no death-row anymore, nor has England for like the last 30 years, but before that we did, and many countries still do have one.
I'm not sure where you get Violence from, I wasn't saying he should be put to death, just made to serve the whole of his prison sentance.
There's also a public-saftey issue to consider. The man was involved in the murder of 270 people at once, we've just told him he could die at any time and therefore has hardly anything to fear from, for example, life inprisonment, and sent him back to a country that supports training terrorists. Yeah, great idea that one!:rolleyes
The point is that -we- don't, as so -we- cannot release anyone under these circumstances. Going back in time doesn't count and nor can -we- make any other country do so.Quote:
I know Scotland has no death-row anymore, nor has England for like the last 30 years, but before that we did, and many countries still do have one.
You brought up death row, that is an extremely violent circumstance. As it is, the quote is to highlight that letting a dying man fester when he can be sent to die with his family, even though he has shown no care to us, brings us down to his level and that, only by showing mercy, can we break that cycle.Quote:
I'm not sure where you get Violence from, I wasn't saying he should be put to death, just made to serve the whole of his prison sentance.
And this is simply ludicruous. He will die with his family around him at home, his country has welcomed him as a hero and there he will stay until he is dead. There is no reason to think otherwise.Quote:
There's also a public-saftey issue to consider. The man was involved in the murder of 270 people at once, we've just told him he could die at any time and therefore has hardly anything to fear from, for example, life inprisonment, and sent him back to a country that supports training terrorists. Yeah, great idea that one!
The idea of a cancer ridden old man being trained up as a terrorist and returning to the country which imprisoned him to seek vengeance might make a really good (read: terrible) movie, but suggesting it could happen is lunacy.
Also, Libya opened diplomatic relations with America and the UK a long time ago now, sanctions have been dropped, it has abandoned it's wmd policy and it is now on the UN Security Council.
It generates political goodwill with Libya at the risk of pissing off a few Brits for a while. The majority will forget about this in due course, while those most affected by this decision simply have the system to blame. It is as simple as that.
I don't know why there's talk of death row. UK doesn't have it, so its irrelevant in this discussion.
I brought up death-row as a flippant analogy to show how ridiculous letting someone involed in the murder of 270 people out of prison was. Sorry, thought that was clear. I wasn't suggesting that we re-instate it either, just so you know.
The country welcomes a man who killed 270 people back as a hero... yeah, not cause for alarm much!
And Bin Laden's reportedly been on dyalysis for years, yet he's hiding in caves, eluding the U.S military and masterminding terrorist attacks, what's stopping the Lockerbie bomber?
You created a straw man.Quote:
I brought up death-row as a flippant analogy to show how ridiculous letting someone involed in the murder of 270 people out of prison was. Sorry, thought that was clear. I wasn't suggesting that we re-instate it either, just so you know.
The country welcomes back a man that most believe to be innocent.Quote:
The country welcomes a man who killed 270 people back as a hero... yeah, not cause for alarm much!
Bin Laden's health is entirely speculation.Quote:
And Bin Laden's reportedly been on dyalysis for years, yet he's hiding in caves, eluding the U.S military and masterminding terrorist attacks, what's stopping the Lockerbie bomber?
Megrahi's is not.
Bin Laden takes pride in what he does.
Megrahi has always protested his innocence.
Incomparable, disregarded.
You are arguing with sensationalism and drivel.
It was still irrelevant, and not a good analogy either.Quote:
Originally posted by Khortez
I brought up death-row as a flippant analogy to show how ridiculous letting someone involed in the murder of 270 people out of prison was. Sorry, thought that was clear. I wasn't suggesting that we re-instate it either, just so you know.
Countries often hail their released captives as heros, probably because in this case they thought he was unjustly convicted? That's just a wild guess.Quote:
The country welcomes a man who killed 270 people back as a hero... yeah, not cause for alarm much!
I'm not a doctor, but even I can see the pointlessness of comparing two unrelated medical diagnosis. And seriously, bringing up Bin Laden is almost as good as bringing in Hitler to the argument. I mean, he reputedly only had one tesitcal, so that's a lot closer to say prostate cancer than requiring kidney dialysis.Quote:
And Bin Laden's reportedly been on dyalysis for years, yet he's hiding in caves, eluding the U.S military and masterminding terrorist attacks, what's stopping the Lockerbie bomber?
Also, going back to the whole 'political goodwill' theme, it is in Libya's best interests to make sure that this man dies a 'hero', with no chance to undermine the 'goodwill' this whole episode has generated. If he is in any way connected with terrorism before he dies, proabbly afterwards to, then Libya look like idiots and lose international credibility.
If Libya are up to their armpits in terrorists, then they can afford to use others rather than this man. He will die in Libya, surrounded by family. Libya will make sure of it.
Can we declare this thread godwinned and close it? It seems to have devolved rather.Quote:
Originally posted by Kraxe
And seriously, bringing up Bin Laden is almost as good as bringing in Hitler to the argument.
I see a pretty big fucking problem right there...Quote:
his country has welcomed him as a hero
I don't get this whole welcoming him as a hero.
Jonathan Pollard is an Israeli imprisoned in the United States on the charge of being a spy. There is a pretty wide consensus in Israel he is innocent and should be released and I view it like this: If he wasn't a spy, he should be released but he is definitely not hero because he didn't do anything for the country; If he IS a spy, he should be locked down. That's the chance you take when you become a spy.
I see the same with the Palestinians and the other Arab countries - there is a tendency to celebrate and crown heroes the most despicable murderers, the same went in Lebanon when during a prisoner exchange we released one of the most vile murderers in the world - Samir Kuntar, who cold bloodedly killed very young kids, and when he got back to Lebanon he was celebrated as a living martyr.
Honestly? I don't get it, but that's probably just a mentality problem on my side.
Well as far as I know the Libyans seem to believe 100% that he is an innocent man who was wrongfully imprisoned in a foreign country.
That's why they celebrate his release and welcome him back with open arms.
So Libya has admitted is was involved in the bombings and even provided compensation to a fund for the families of those killed. If
Al Megrahi is innocent, I wonder when someone will ask them to hand over the guilty party?
Let's assume for a moment he is 100% innocent, a kind, loving and a tree-hugger and that the evil Brits imprisoned him for no reason but their hatred for the different (call it a fallacy or whatever you may, but this is how the Lybians see it) - what makes him a hero? Are you aware of how many Brits are wrongfully imprisoned in South America and East Asia? If they ever come back - will they be heroes? I highly doubt so.
No, and that is part of the point. This was a super high profile case.Quote:
Are you aware of how many Brits are wrongfully imprisoned in South America and East Asia?