Lockerbie bomber release.
It seems like he is beening allowed home to die with his family.Posted 8 years ago
The warm fluffy side of me says thats a good thing, shows compassion.
The colder bit says good, the tax payer won't have to pay a huge medical bill as he slowoly dies of cancer.
And **** the yanks.SSTMember
I like the way he's wearing a Nike cap on his way to the plane.
In a radio interview, Mr Obama said: "that his administration had told the Libyan government that Megrahi should not receive a hero's welcome and should be placed under house arrest"
but . . . . Earlier on Thursday, police took Megrahi from Scotland's Greenock Prison to Glasgow Airport to board a private jet owned by the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
Posted 8 years agocoffeekingMember
The question is what is the point of compassionate release. You can look at it a few ways, some Qs…
1) Do people who are (presumably) guilty (we can't pass judgement on that really, we dont have the evidence) deserve compassion?
2) What does it achieve.
3) Does it cause other problems.
4) What is the point of compassion.
So my answers from my short thinking are:
1) Probably not, I can see no reason why someone who has been found guilty should be allowed free just because they're ill. If someone slapped you in the face with a mallet, then said "please dont hurt me, I'm ill" would you be compassionate? I doubt it, compassion is a luxury of those who have not suffered, and instructed by the religions of those who have suffered in order to maintain order.
2) It achieves practically nothing. Do you really think the US care what scotland do lol? Do you really think that Mr Bomber is now going to feel all warm and fuzzy because we've let him free when he's dying?
3) Well you now have a convicted bomber on the loose with nothing to lose and probably all the right contacts to get false ID for travelling, but I presume he'd be under close watch, not just free to roam.
4) I see no point in it. Either they did a bad thing and should see their punishment through, or they did not. Back to the mallet – you whap me in the face with a mallet and ask for help with your terminal illness and I'll pick myself up and beat you senseless regardless, your illness does not constitute a pardon on my part. Sure as a member of the public I can sit back and think "ooh how nice, he can see his family, arent the scots a lovely lot".
The only good thing to come out of it, that I see, are that his family will get to see him off, so i'm ok with it on those grounds.Posted 8 years agoanokdaleMember
Well here in Tripoli the avarage Libyan does not give a toss about this guy, they just want to get on with things knowing that when they were classed as the bad boy it meant they suffered as a result. Nothing to do with oil it has never been mentioned here and i sit in on some top draw meetings with National Oil Company.
Ramadan kicks off Friday so the gesture to get him back here for that time is well appreciated as the period is a time for the family. Not really big news, the Tripoli post had a picture of his mum on the front and a little story but really no fuss. In fact looking into Green Square the speech given by one of Gaddaffis sons tonight to the Youth movement and the fireworks has drawn a bigger crowd, also there is a rumour some US Rap star is to turn up this weekend to kick of the 40th year celebrations and thats what everyone is talking about.
Gaddafi is due in New York later this year to address the UN as he is head of the African Union, no doubt he will rub the Yanks nose in it possibly turning up with a picture of the guy pinned to himself as he did when he visited Italy last month wearing a photo of a freedom fighter the Italians slotted, all fun and games to the Leader but the guy has not long left to live so like they have done with Ronnie Biggs let him die at home.Posted 8 years agoSpectral-AlphabetMember
You know what when you consider that the US (or rather the people there complaining) are supposedly christian yet they are braying for blood I just don't get it.
Whether the guy is guilty or not he is on his last legs.
If we cant let him go home to die then we are evil vicious small minded hypocritical folks and in my book are almost as bad as he allegedly is because we think we are oh so much better than him.
Kenny's comment about a higher judge than us actually was correctly measured IMHO.Posted 8 years agomartyMember
i'm pleasantly surprised by STW. thought it'd all be a bit Daily Mail.
Do you really think that Mr Bomber is now going to feel all warm and fuzzy because we've let him free when he's dying?Posted 8 years ago
ever sat with someone who is dying? i have. things really affect people in their last days/hours. if he did it (and i seriously doubt it) then it'll haunt him to the very end. if he didn't, ditto.TandemJeremyMember
Moses – Member
When the Americans shot down an Iranian airliner, they paid no compensation to the victims' families, nor apologised. Libya did both – although that was probably to obviate more trade sanctions. It was more likely not a Libyan action anyway.
Very true – altho the Iranians got their revenge – by blowing up a plane over LockerbiePosted 8 years agocranberryMember
"In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice. As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed. The United States did not admit responsibility or apologize to the Iranian government."Posted 8 years agoclarkpm4242Member
Surely 'release on compassionate grounds' as above or with Mr Biggs is what separates us from the terrorists and right-wing America.
A good position to be in.
PS It would have been big 'internal' political mistake for the Obama administration to take any other stance.Posted 8 years agocoffeekingMember
ever sat with someone who is dying? i have. things really affect people in their last days/hours. if he did it (and i seriously doubt it) then it'll haunt him to the very end. if he didn't, ditto.
Me too, but what has that got to do with whether he should remain in prison? While some people seem to be thinking that it makes us the worse party if we dont let him go home to die, I personally don't think that's the case. Again, assuming guilt, he's killed hundreds. They never had the chance to see their loved ones. Why should he be spared that fate? Why does us sparing him that fate make us better people? Is it better to spare one person the fate of dying in prison, or return hundreds, possibly thousands, of family members to a position of anger and upset? At the end of the day it's personal choice where the line is drawn, but I dont see how the people of the UK can be the ones cast in a bad light when they are the ones against whome the original injustice was performed. You may say that if he is released it's really nice, but you can't say that if he ISNT released its our fault and we're all mean and nasty. He committed a crime, he was sentenced to life in prison, that should mean life. There are hundreds if not thousands of prisoners out there who probably are pre-cancerous by the laws of statistical probability, do we release them all now because they've now been "handed a sentence by a higher power" ?Posted 8 years agolobby_dosserMember
So the scottish parliment is to be recalled to 'discuss the decision' on Monday. A bit late for discussing it after the fact.
Macaskill made the decision and I think he'll not only lose his job over this, but take a few senior politicians down with him (even impacting the whole Scottish parliment set up). Personally I think this is a major international blunder by Scotland.Posted 8 years agoHeather BashMember
>Surely 'release on compassionate grounds' as above or with Mr Biggs is what separates us from the terrorists and right-wing America.<
Quite and that's the basis upon which he was duty bound to evaluate the case / take the decision – as it is in every case where the prisoner has less than 3 months to live.
The Americans just so don't get this of course because their whole judicial / penal system is founded upon retribution and that is completely different from our justice system here in the UK / Scotland.
A few more observations:
Macaskill has absolutely nothing to gain by this – on the contrary. For all his faults (visiting the jail for example) he took a humanitarian decision.
The lone guy waving the saltire in Tripoli – how many of them would have been burning them had he died a martyr in jail?Posted 8 years agoGrahamSSubscriber
There are hundreds if not thousands of prisoners out there who probably are pre-cancerous
True. But he is a bit beyond "pre-cancerous". He has highly aggressive bum cancer that is not responding to treatment and is only expected to live for a couple of months.
"Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.
"The Act requires that ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment.
"Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon.
"There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period.
"The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.Posted 8 years ago
The topic ‘Lockerbie bomber release.’ is closed to new replies.