After Lockerbie: Should al-Megrahi be let free?

After Lockerbie: Should al-Megrahi be let free?

Revenge and retribution has a lot to do with these things. I both understand and am horrified about such things.

The following is a bit off-topic in that it is not a death sentence situation, at least not in the normal sense, but it does illustrate the two sides of this debate, a desire for retribution and a desire for compassion:

US stands against bomber release. It's maybe worth a thread by itself.

My view, by the way, is that there is more to be gained in letting the man go than not.

<i>Split from the <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=3079044">death penalty</a> thread.</i>

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

As for Gitmo ..It is one of the the best prisons in this part of the world. You may not like the law that created their internment

Perhaps it is a great prison, but it is in Cuba. I wish we didn't operate our prisons in other countries no matter how convoluted the reasons.

+1

Originally posted by string:

What laws? The laws of Scotland, the ones your government (and mine) agreed would pertain to this case.

Do you know specific laws regarding the release ? I would like to read.

I am sure that would put my mind at ease.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Perhaps it is a great prison, but it is in Cuba. I wish we didn't operate our prisons in other countries no matter how convoluted the reasons.

Now look at that we agree on something... I believe we should have turned then over the the authorities in their perspective countries.

... for dispensation

After all the skirmishes took place outside the US. Therefore they shouldn't face criminal charges in U.S. don't you agree??

lookee, lookee you got a R+....coming up one gummy bear. +1

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

Originally posted by string:

What laws? The laws of Scotland, the ones your government (and mine) agreed would pertain to this case.

Do you know specific laws regarding the release ? I would like to read.

I am sure that would put my mind at ease.

A nice question and one which I have tried to find myself.

What I'd also like to read is the actual document which gives the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill the power to decide on these matters. It may not itself be written as a law but in a qualifying document that describes the responsibilities under law. That he has lawful responsibility, and that it is part and parcel of the Scottish law I have no doubt from finding it stated and restated but finding chapter and verse has eluded me. Knowing exactly where to look is part of my problem I think.

The best explanation of the workings of the law and the process of thought I have found, which reiterates the cover of this issue under Scottish Law is that of Kenny MacAskill himself here. In that he states:

"As Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland it is my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. These are my decisions and my decisions alone." (the decisions are those related to release of prisoners on compassionate grounds)

Further, cogent, thoughts on the original release decision are given here

That link is useful in that it highlights the Scottish approach to justice rather well.

Incidentally a forthright view on this affair in its broader context is given here

I would still like to read . I am sure they all have their tails covered. I would suggest their is a difference between mercy and release.I would like to read factors to be considered in release versus mercy.
If I were to get prostrate cancer, and not even incarcerated I would go to hospice not a Miami vacation to live it up with the family.

As his case and the government probably behind the whole thing.

I can not argue the point until I read the law. I will continue.

Thank you for your efforts

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970043_en_3#pt2-ch1-pb2-l1g10

Early release
10
Early release on compassionate grounds


(1)
The Secretary of State may at any time release a prisoner if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the prisoner’s release on compassionate grounds.

(2)
Before releasing under subsection (1) above a prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board, unless the circumstances are such as to render such consultation impracticable.

if you follow up and look at parole rules it is a ring around.

CYA as I suspected, of course this is the review by a non lawyer.

Scots should be appalled at misuse of law. or at least upset at the law in capitol cases., regardless of how you come down on release of this criminal/murderer

I wonder if they have ever released a murderer serving a life sentence before for compassionate reasons

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

Scots should be appalled at misuse of law. or at least upset at the law in capitol cases., regardless of how you come down on release of this criminal/murderer

Why should we? Just so it would suit some American senators. Alex Salmond should just tell them to go and get stuffed.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

I wonder if they have ever released a murderer serving a life sentence before for compassionate reasons

Yes

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

Scots should be appalled at misuse of law. or at least upset at the law in capitol cases., regardless of how you come down on release of this criminal/murderer

A capital case, or capital crime, requires capital punishment, which we don't have.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1982

Posted today. How appropriate.

I just looked out my window a lot of assholes out and about today.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

I just looked out my window a lot of assholes out and about today.

You should move to a better neighbourhood then. Where I live I can only see one from my window.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970043_en_3#pt2-ch1-pb2-l1g10

Early release
10
Early release on compassionate grounds

Thanks - good googling!

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

I just looked out my window a lot of assholes out and about today.

Are you sure that wasn't a mirror?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Are you sure that wasn't a mirror?

Hey that was my comeback.

I almost said great minds but that was a stretch.....

Hello, String. I've only just discovered this thread of yours, unfortunately, and so may have missed the boat.

I think, having read through your comments to your guests, that we may be of more or less the same mind - forgive the presumption, please, if I'm wrong. I'm reminded ever so slightly, however, of the difficulties I have when talking with people who favour the death penalty. The very notion offends my sensibilities and seems like a betrayal of our shared and common humanity. Better, surely, to rise above the bloodlust and (perfectly valid) thirst for revenge, and afford the lives of those we hate the kind of dignity they singularly failed to confer upon the lives of others? They may view us as weak and as lacking resolve, but the polar opposite is true. It sometimes seems futile to try to explain to dissenters why this course of action feels more like authentic victory. And it always seems weak and woundingly wrong to settle a score with the terminal option of death.

And so with Megrahi and the (fraught) decision to free him under the guise of "compassionate release" I find myself similarly vexed. It's quite hard to articulate why I feel it was the right thing to do to release such a loathsome man, really, so I hope you'll forgive me for quoting an excerpt of myself (very, <em>very</em> bad form, I know - I hang my head in shame) from a blog post I once wrote somewhere or other? This was about the only time I came anywhere near to being able to say what I felt:

"Someone wrote convincingly – in The Economist, I think - about the importance of symbolism (if all else fails). Basically, the writer argued, it is important for people to feel that justice is at least being symbolically served by the continued incarceration of the only man ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. I agree.

Taken at face value, however, I just happen to agree <em>more</em> with the symbolism of a society daring to offer compassion - even to men like Megrahi. In fact, <em>especially</em> to men like Megrahi, <em>especially</em> to those people we may actively fear and despise."

I come back to the point again, String, that this just feels more like authentic victory to me.

Anyway, thanks, I enjoyed reading through the thread.

Kind regards etc...

Amazingless

Originally posted by amazingless:

Taken at face value, however, I just happen to agree more with the symbolism of a society daring to offer compassion - even to men like Megrahi.

Perhaps some think this was a manipulation of justice and the current law for less than moral reasons. Does the end justify the means as long as it accomplishes what you, in particular, want?

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

Perhaps some think this was a manipulation of justice and the current law for less than moral reasons.

They've yet to offer any evidence of that, of course, merely insinuation.

Perhaps some do, Classicdenny77, you could be right, and perhaps I do, as well - up to a point, although I'll get to that in a minute - which is why I took the care to preface those remarks with the words "taken at face value". Fair enough?

It's the idea and sentiment behind "compassionate release", I suppose, which appeals to me the most, rather than the somewhat galling (and to a great number of people, bitterly upsetting) circumstances of this particular man's hobble to freedom.

It's tricky, of course, because the question of Megrahi's guilt (or otherwise) often seems to complicate the discussions people have about this case. If it's possible just to leave to that to one side for a moment, however, then I can't help feeling that the principle of "compassionate release" is probably conducive to the forming of a more tolerant kind of society; a place where our natural (and perfectly understandable) desire for vengeance may be tempered by cooler heads and a final recourse to compassion. Obviously, these are merely personal preferences, but, as a Scot, I felt more than comfortable to think that the new(ish) SNP administration felt able to take such a stand. ("Taken at face value" - just to be clear.)

"Perhaps some think this was a manipulation of justice and the current law for less than moral reasons." I sort of see what you're saying, Classicdenny77, although I'm in no way familiar with how Scots law was manipulated in this particular case? Could you explain that, please? To my mind (and as far as I'm aware), Scots law was, in fact, followed to the very letter - although I suspect that it was only done so for political expedience. Is this maybe what you mean?

The Justice Secretary, under Scots law, is allowed to exercise his or her discretion in the granting of clemency to prisoners who it is believed will die within three months. So that's what he did. I may be missing something, true, but I don't see a distortion of Scots law in these actions, merely the forensic application.

"....a manipulation of justice...." Well, that would depend on your notion of justice, I suppose. Was your notion of justice offended by his release? I know a great many people felt offended by it - and I have every sympathy for them and can see why they might have been upset - but I just happen to feel differently (once I've overcome a few reservations).

"...for less than moral reasons...." I have a hunch that you're bang on the money with this one. It's a little bit disgusting to think of such events being manipulated by self-serving politicians, no? Again, I can only refer you back to the fact that I prefaced my remarks with the words "taken at face value".

"Does the end justify the means as long as it accomplishes what you, in particular, want?" No, of course not. Why would it?

Anyhoo, I hope I answered your questions. It's a bit of a nightmare topic, don't you think?

Kind regards etc...

Originally posted by amazingless:

"...for less than moral reasons...." I have a hunch that you're bang on the money with this one. It's a little bit disgusting to think of such things being manipulated by self-serving politicians, no? Again, I can only refer you back to the fact that I prefaced my remarks with the words "taken at face value".

"Does the end justify the means as long as it accomplishes what you, in particular, want?" No, of course not. Why would it?

Well there you go.

It is not a perfect world I realize that but in this case ,in my opinion, which won't buy you much, many Scots should be, and probably are, greatly offended by this situation. And from what I have read, contrary to what some people say. regardless of compassion his ass should be in jail. Prostrate cancer is a disease, that I guess 60 % of males will have, What ever the stat that would mean we should let most men incarcerated out to enjoy the last 10 or 20 years of life..

This was beyond the pale and I can only speak for myself but I was surprised that such a thing was allowed in The UK.

It is beyond nightmare for families of the people who went down on that plane..It matters not what country they came from.

I do appreciate you honesty , but I fail to understand the complaisance I see on this board.

Oh, yes, I think you'd be right to assume that the majority of Scots were against the decision, Classicdenny77. The majority of British people taken as a whole, as well. I can't remember what the figures were, exactly, but I'm pretty sure that I was (and remain) in a severely minority opinion - which may give you some comfort!

As for the families of the victims...well, that's a tricky one, and it should be one of the reasons that everyone steps with due care around this subject. To my mind, for what it's worth, they have a right to say and feel just whatever they please. They've earned this privilege in the most gruesome fashion imaginable and to step lightly on their grief would be an abomination.

Interestingly, however, a fair number of the British families wanted to see Megrahi released, so it's not just as simple as saying that all of the families would be mortified by the decision - as FBI director Robert Mueller suggested, for example. His open letter to Kenny MacAskill (the Scottish Justice Secretary) was an incautious, shatteringly parochial, factually confused travesty and I reckon it put a lot of people's backs up. He seemed to have no basic awareness of the fact that people around the world do things differently to the American model - a grievous oversight and a terribly unhelpful one at that.

I hear you, though, and I get your anger, and I'm never going to say that you're wrong to feel it. These things are too deeply tied to a personal sense of morality to be easily labelled with the certainty of concepts like "right" and "wrong". It's just never as simple as that.

Nice to have bumped into you.

Take it easy.

Kind regards etc...

Originally posted by amazingless:

Kind regards etc..

As I understand

You for the most part agree with me except...

You are happy the Justice department using questionable reasons were compassionate and let the killer sleaze go.

I would have to say that is a unusual position and one that I could never understand..

Have a nice day

Little more to be-gained with this conservation, for me at least.

Lockerbie bomber Megrahi 'in a coma'

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, is close to death, according to reports

Thanks for that bit of information....

One of the side benefits of the Libyan turmoil is that the facts on this topic are surfacing. the pro al-Megrahi faction post in this topic are looking like toast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022302133.html

Originally posted by grysmn:

One of the side benefits of the Libyan turmoil is that the facts on this topic are surfacing. the pro al-Megrahi faction post in this topic are looking like toast.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022302133.html

I think most everyone is interested to have truth and hopefully we will get some surety of it in due time.

But I don't think it is true that there is a "pro al-Megrahi faction" as you remark. That statement of yours is merely a thirst for vengeance out-pacing objectivity.

(I hope the USA scoops these guys..We may learn the truth.)

http://www.mb.com.ph/node/218045/many-briton
Many Britons think Lockerbie bomber's release was about oil.

Given the record of BP- ( British Petroleum)

And I hope this should come to light also.

Operation AJAX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#U.S._role

BP and Iran: The Forgotten History

In 1953, the CIA decided to act as Britain’s stooge. Britain, you see, was ready to go to war with Iran over oil. That’s right–the government of Iran, via its Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, had decided to nationalize the country’s oil, something imperial Britain couldn’t handle. That’s because Britain had been controlling Iran’s oil for 40 years (through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company [APOI], later renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [AIOC], still later renamed British Petroleum [BP]). By this time, of course, the new big kid on the block was the United States; Britain didn’t have the resources or the power to do whatever it wanted, not like in the old days. So British intelligence–old hat at the game–approached U.S. intelligence (a brand new outfit called the CIA) and convinced the Americans that it was in their interest to protect British (and American) oil control in the region (and to prevent Iran from aligning with the Soviets, though there was little or no evidence that this would occur).]


Seems to me that the UK has been the biggest shit disturber in the mideast..
And the US, The biggest Suckers

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Given the record of BP- ( British Petroleum)

BP has been Beyond Petroleum for more than a decade now.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Seems to me that the UK has been the biggest shit disturber in the mideast..

The Brits definitely win in the category from 1900-1950, but we, the US win from 1951-20?? .
*We supplied Gaddafi until the bitter end (now)* and we also supplied the tyrant Mubarak until he was overthrown.
You should possibly be a tad bit more careful in making such presumptuous assertions, Max.


Edit: * = The end of a cruel and dictatorial regime in which Libyan's human rights were suppressed by Gaddafi's army, which in turn was financed by US $'s and UK pounds to ensure stability in the region, which helped keep oil prices lower.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

We supplied Gaddafi until the bitter end (now)

What?

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Given the record of BP- ( British Petroleum)

BP's record is generally very good, While I have little personal experience with the oil industry, the ones that should be in the know give BP high marks for professionalism. However the Gulf well was spectacularly mismanaged.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Given the record of BP- ( British Petroleum)

BP has been Beyond Petroleum for more than a decade now.

I think their name's simply BP or bp, "Beyond Petroleum" being a motto or some such.

Don't know whay fanfaron is throwing in "what?" when what thedawgfan said is fairly historically correct about Great Britain thenthe USA.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Don't know whay fanfaron is throwing in "what?" when what thedawgfan said is fairly historically correct about Great Britain thenthe USA.

We "supplied" Qaddafi with what, exactly?

All of the small arms, tanks, ships, and planes are Russian. All that is left to supply is liquor and porn.

Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is 'in coma'

I note, from the report, that his whereabouts are "not known". Also I note that America is "said" to have requested for his extradition but this has been refused by the "rebel government" (odd term that).

It remains to be seen how much of that is true, but I shall be glad if any sordid re-arrest or deportation is avoided.

The saga is not over yet but may well be soon, which is probably to the good.

It will be more interesting to find out what part Gaddafi & Co had to do with the Lockerbie atrocity and who. apart from Megrahi, was involved.

Well America can certainly huff and puff but Megrahi was seen to by a Scottish Court not a UK one and in the bounds of Scots Law which is also different from the UK's. The Local Authority in Scotland concerned and the Megrahi family are to be in occasional touch as per the legalities. The Scottish Government has no intention of getting Megrahi back and neither the UK Government nor the American one can do anything about it as it was under our system. And in addition the Transitional Council in Libya has made it clear they will not allow him to be extradited. I can understand Americans being a bit put out but the Senators who made such a hoo-ha and posturing were on silly games with this one.

At least cite him for littering Lockerie with the remainments of a 747 and the remains of the crew and passengers.

I must say that there are people here and not fools either who have aquestioned some aspects of the trial and whether in fact he is the right man. I was stating the formal and legal situation but personally if he is definitively guilty which he was in a Scots Court then he should have been kept in prison even if he was to die there. The system does allow for this celemcy but political opnion here is not all for the case that he was allowed to return home.

As a pont of information we have had over the years a member of the group of Britons who lost family members on tv. He is a doctor here and has expressed an opinion that it was right to allow Megrahi home to fade away. There also has to be contact between the Local Authority in Scotland and the man. So it is not a case of the whole political system here agreeing with the SNP Justice Secretary McAskill.

Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli

The End.

No it's not and shows how much you know!

Here the case has in law actually remained "open" as it happens and our senior Law Officer in the Scottish Legal system has been to Tripoli to meet the mixture bag of a government having trouble running things there. Those who think that Megrahi guilty feel he didn't act alone. There are also people who have doubts. So not quite the end yet legally as it happens.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

No it's not and shows how much you know!

Here the case has in law actually remained "open" as it happens and our senior Law Officer in the Scottish Legal system has been to Tripoli to meet the mixture bag of a government having trouble running things there. Those who think that Megrahi guilty feel he didn't act alone. There are also people who have doubts. So not quite the end yet legally as it happens.

You express yourself with your usual charm, rjh.

But in my view this thread has come to the end of it's purpose, discussion has been wide enough to cover most if not all opinions.

Of course investigations are continuing, anyone with an IQ higher than a lettuce would know that.

I had intended to leave the opening another thread where such things could be discussed to someone else, but on reflection decided to open one myself (see Who ordered the bombing of Flight Pan Am Flight 103?) to prevent our neighbourhood conspiracy artist having a recurring OP on the subject sporting a ridiculous conspiracy insulting to both our intelligence and (more importantly) the relatives of those who died.

It is just possible that the bomber/fall-guy al-Megrahi will eventually be found to be the latter rather than the former in which case a revitalisation of this thread would be useful.

Save my charm and you ain't a woman string! This suject has now come on a seperate thread by Jaybro and I have added comment there so no need for to do it twice. Yours with enlightening charm.

There are —even here— people with more intellectual prowess, RJ. (Sorry, to the rest: I've obviously been here too long myself!) RJ's "charm" consists in the fact that noone has yet beat him to a bloody pulp… (I know someone who, quite reasonably, contends that such is a sign of the Apocalypse! But he won't say so… )

Nae chance of beating me to anything OakdaleFTL. You would need assistance the chair is too cumfy. I'll keep my eye on the other thread on this subject so enjoy your dreams!