Lockerbie bomber to be released
Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:06 am
I can't believe this!
Lockerbie bomber to be released
EDINBURGH, Scotland – The Scottish government says it will release Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds to allow him to return to Libya to die.
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said Thursday that there had been a significant deterioration in the health of al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.
MacAskill says he is conscious that there "were deeply held feelings and that many may disagree."
Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988. He was sentenced to life in prison.
The airliner — which was carrying mostly American passengers to New York — blew up as it flew over Scotland. All 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when the aircraft crashed into the town of Lockerbie.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
EDINBURGH, Scotland (AP) — The Scottish government says it will release Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds to allow him to return to Libya to die.
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said Thursday that there had been a significant deterioration in the health of al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.
MacAskill says he is conscious that there "were deeply held feelings and that many may disagree."
Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988. He was sentenced to life in prison.
The airliner — which was carrying mostly American passengers to New York — blew up as it flew over Scotland. All 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when the aircraft crashed into the town of Lockerbie.
Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:20 am
Why? California wants to release 27,000 inmates right now, something the "Governator" supports, to save a few budget dollars.
Since California adopted the "Three Strikes" law, crime has dropped dramatically. Now due to fiscal constraints (really overspending in the public sector), the state legislature wants to undo this.
Since California adopted the "Three Strikes" law, crime has dropped dramatically. Now due to fiscal constraints (really overspending in the public sector), the state legislature wants to undo this.
Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:09 am
Yeah, it sucks. But please feel free to join in the boycott. I need as much Scotch as I can get right now.
Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:50 am
bdk wrote:Why? California wants to release 27,000 inmates right now, something the "Governator" supports, to save a few budget dollars.
Since California adopted the "Three Strikes" law, crime has dropped dramatically. Now due to fiscal constraints (really overspending in the public sector), the state legislature wants to undo this.
couldn't they just expell them out of California for a certain amount of time?
Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:16 am
bdk wrote:Why? California wants to release 27,000 inmates right now, something the "Governator" supports, to save a few budget dollars.
Since California adopted the "Three Strikes" law, crime has dropped dramatically. Now due to fiscal constraints (really overspending in the public sector), the state legislature wants to undo this.
Did any of them murder 250+ people?
Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:34 am
How many have terminal Cancer?
Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:58 am
bdk wrote:Since California adopted the "Three Strikes" law, crime has dropped dramatically. Now due to fiscal constraints (really overspending in the public sector), the state legislature wants to undo this.
The evidence for a causal relationship between the three strikes law and lower crime is weak, disputed, and controversial. Crime has dropped dramatically in recent years in many places with no habitual offender laws.
August
Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:22 pm
Manonthefence wrote:How many have terminal Cancer?
WHy should we care if they have terminal cancer? The point of prison is punishment and to keep them away from the rest of teh population. Just because they might have a disease shouldn't let them off the hook.
Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:53 pm
Very true Muddy... And I personally can see where it might make some criminals more willing to go out in a blaze of "glory" knowing they're already going to die. Bad idea.
Ryan
Ryan
Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:13 pm
I know where you are coming from Muddy. On balance I dont agree with the decision to release him but I can understand it.
He has served time (although not enough), he is going to die a very unpleasant death, indeed possibly more unpleasant than if he had stayed in jail. Nothing you I or the Scottish or American Governments do will bring back the passengers and crew from Pan Am 103. By showing compassion in this case, you prove to an Arab Nation that you arent always out for revenge and that you arent always the bad guys they think you are. That may in the long run go some way to putting an end to the conflict that is currently cosing the lives of young men on both sides. So why not let him go, it happened under our terms and all Libya got back was a dead man walking. At the end of the day we are defined by our humanity
We recently in the UK had a similar situation with a known bank robber (have you guys heard of the Great Train Robbery and a chap called Ronnie Biggs). He was an accomplice in a robbery, was jailed, escaped and fled to Brazil. He eventually came back when he too was terminally ill and was thrown back in jail. They have just let him out, but he has had several strokes and it confined to bed not much more than a vegetable. So he was freed to return to his family on compassionate grounds, because he is going to die and there is not much point in keeping a dying man in jail. For the records I accept that both cases arent totally compatible because Biggs didnt kill anyone, but other than that they are similar.
However in both cases I have very big reservations about the decision to release the men. Why? Because neither showed any contrition for what they have done. Al-Megrahi always pleaded not guilty, continued his appeal in the face of overwhelming evidence and therefore made the relatives of those who died go through the agony of a trial. As such he has never said sorry. No contrition means no mercy in my book.
But what does keeping a dying man in jail away from his family (even one who has killed 270 people) achieve? It just smacks of revenge to me, and thats what got us into this mess in the first place.
So, on balance the wrong decision but I can see why it was made and I wouldnt have wanted to make it.
Its not black and white and to treat it as such is making a grave mistake.
He has served time (although not enough), he is going to die a very unpleasant death, indeed possibly more unpleasant than if he had stayed in jail. Nothing you I or the Scottish or American Governments do will bring back the passengers and crew from Pan Am 103. By showing compassion in this case, you prove to an Arab Nation that you arent always out for revenge and that you arent always the bad guys they think you are. That may in the long run go some way to putting an end to the conflict that is currently cosing the lives of young men on both sides. So why not let him go, it happened under our terms and all Libya got back was a dead man walking. At the end of the day we are defined by our humanity
We recently in the UK had a similar situation with a known bank robber (have you guys heard of the Great Train Robbery and a chap called Ronnie Biggs). He was an accomplice in a robbery, was jailed, escaped and fled to Brazil. He eventually came back when he too was terminally ill and was thrown back in jail. They have just let him out, but he has had several strokes and it confined to bed not much more than a vegetable. So he was freed to return to his family on compassionate grounds, because he is going to die and there is not much point in keeping a dying man in jail. For the records I accept that both cases arent totally compatible because Biggs didnt kill anyone, but other than that they are similar.
However in both cases I have very big reservations about the decision to release the men. Why? Because neither showed any contrition for what they have done. Al-Megrahi always pleaded not guilty, continued his appeal in the face of overwhelming evidence and therefore made the relatives of those who died go through the agony of a trial. As such he has never said sorry. No contrition means no mercy in my book.
But what does keeping a dying man in jail away from his family (even one who has killed 270 people) achieve? It just smacks of revenge to me, and thats what got us into this mess in the first place.
So, on balance the wrong decision but I can see why it was made and I wouldnt have wanted to make it.
Its not black and white and to treat it as such is making a grave mistake.
Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:27 pm
Manonthefence...
My reply would be something that your ancestors (and mine) there in Scotland would likely been very familiar with:
Ryan
My reply would be something that your ancestors (and mine) there in Scotland would likely been very familiar with:
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the children of men is fully set in them to do evil.
Ryan
Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:42 am
Dont quote religion, its what caused all of this. If you are going to quote a text please quote all of it and take it in the context of which it was written. Otherwise you end up having to kill your daughter for looking at you the wrong way etc etc 
Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:25 am
Manonthefence wrote:Dont quote religion, its what caused all of this. If you are going to quote a text please quote all of it and take it in the context of which it was written. Otherwise you end up having to kill your daughter for looking at you the wrong way etc etc
Actually the quote I gave you was more of a proverb from an old, wise king - not needing further context. You're right that context is important, but some things are self evident even to most pagans.
One could easily look at it the other way as well - lack of proper religion caused someone to commit 200+ murders, and now allows some fool of a judge to release him on grounds of "compassion."
My Scottish heroes like Knox, Rutherford, Wallace, Bruce, etc... are turning over in their graves. I imagine next y'all will need to change your flag as well.
Seriously, I love Scotland, but am terribly sad to see this.
Ryan - at least partly from the McKenzie clan
Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:14 am
Manonthefence, I thought your analysis was quite intelligent.
I am suspicious of proverbs and quotations. Too often, dressing up insipid ideas in elegant phrasing, or attributing them to a great man, tends to distract from the fact that they are still insipid.
In addition to the humanitarian and moral-high-ground arguments, it is worth considering the economics. Terminally ill people require expensive medical care for even minimally humane treatment. How do we feel about pouring money into keeping this killer alive and relatively comfortable? Maybe better to shift those costs to Libya where, even though the fellow is some kind of hero, he will not likely obtain as good medical care than as an inmate in Scotland. Once the confetti is swept up, this humanitarian release could actually be seen as further punishment.
August
I am suspicious of proverbs and quotations. Too often, dressing up insipid ideas in elegant phrasing, or attributing them to a great man, tends to distract from the fact that they are still insipid.
In addition to the humanitarian and moral-high-ground arguments, it is worth considering the economics. Terminally ill people require expensive medical care for even minimally humane treatment. How do we feel about pouring money into keeping this killer alive and relatively comfortable? Maybe better to shift those costs to Libya where, even though the fellow is some kind of hero, he will not likely obtain as good medical care than as an inmate in Scotland. Once the confetti is swept up, this humanitarian release could actually be seen as further punishment.
August