Scotland frees terminally ill Lockerbie bomber

Remove all ads!

Scotland frees terminally ill Lockerbie bomber

I must admit I find the decision to release Al-Megrahi quite puzzling. I really don't see how being terminally ill should weigh in at all in his prison sentence. There are times I believe the past actions of a person determine how compassionate a populace should be. I personally agree with the sentiments of this man:

"I'm totally against it. He murdered 270 people," said Paul Halsch of Perinton, New York, who lost his 31-year-old wife in the attack. "This might sound crude or blunt, but I want him returned from Scotland the same way my wife Lorraine was ... and that would be in a box."

 

I'm just wondering why they think he's less of a threat now that he's dieing. I mean, it'd seem to me he just has less to loose.

 

It was done for diplomatic reasons, I'm sure. 66 percent of all regular prisoners who face the same prospects of dieing in the Scottish prison system are denied "compassionate" release. Only 1 in 3 are released. This is just BS.

 

To show compassion to this piece of **** is an insult to the people he murdered -- in fact, as you all well know, I believe that letting him live in the first place was an incredible insult to the dead. But I digress.

The legal systems that permit this sort of crap need to be seriously revamped in the interests of justice.

 

He was convicted to life in prison. So this makes no sense. I don't see what being terminally ill has to do with it. He would have eventually become terminally ill and died, so the fact that this is happening earlier than expected really is irrelevant to the issue. That's what life in prison means - you stay in prison until you die.

 

A life sentence doesn't literally mean that in practice, in the UK or Ireland. It generally just means a very long one and 'good behaviour' plays an important part of when you get out. Early release on compassionate grounds would not be unusual for a terminally ill prisoner so he's not a particularly unusual case.

In any case I'm sure politics played a massive part in all of this. Libya is much more friendly these days (relatively) and the UK has been responding to this. Furthermore the appeals case he was bringing would have caused all manner of trouble for the UK government. I'm not saying I believe he was innocent/was framed but there are plenty of people both in the UK and the Muslim world who do. The UK has framed innocent people for terrorist bombings before don't forget. Releasing the man like this allows any potential controversy to blow over and be ignored.

 

He was not even sentenced until 2001 - he only served eight years. Even if life doesn't mean life in the UK, I would like to think life means more than eight years - unless you're already dead.

 

I didn't notice the 2001 date, I presumed the trial was around the same time as the bombing. Still, I wouldn't consider releasing a prisoner with 3 or so months left to live to be unusual.

This is the take of one of the leading British broadsheets:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...over-this-miscarriage-of-justice-1771887.html

It's noteworthy that this appears to be the dominant stance of the victims' families in Britain as opposed to those in America. I suppose it comes down to trust in the authorities and the importance attached to the rule of law in the two countries.

 

Some say it comes down to oil, which would not surprise me. Dylan lays it on the line about 4 minutes into this video:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32490236#32490236

 

By the way Chandos, the original article posted at the start put the figures for those released in such circumstances as 23 out of 30, over 75%. Where did you get 33% from? Ulterior motives aside I don't think his release is unusual. I don't think we really know what his motive was but, if he is guilty, it seems likely it was related to the fact he was a Libyan intelligence officer. I haven't seen any indication he's a jihadist in the manner of the 9/11 terrorists. I doubt he's a threat to the public even leaving aside his poor health.

 

Deise - The figure (33 percent released) was mentioned on the same program from the link I provided, "Morning Meeting" on MSNBC. It was dicussed, and brought up, by a family member of one of the victims.

 

I'm not sure why, but I can't bring myself to give a monkey's one way or the other about this particular issue. [non-existent shrug smiley]

 

In certain cases I'd support the death penalty too, but it's better to motivate it without emotional arguments. Unjustly imprisoning a person can be way more damaging to society, than wrongly ending his life.

Yeah, it's preposterous. People in Holland can get out of jail after 6 years, for committing premeditated murder! It's a sick joke. When confronted with this fact, most people reply: "Well, but prison isn't fun. You get raped by other men." Maybe it should become part of the prison curriculum then.

Would this be a good opportunity to mention 7/7 ripple effect, without being mouthed off? Or is it always a bad time?

 

That would be contingent on what 7/7 ripple effect is -- I've never heard that particular term before.

 

Well, it was part of my title of my old 'conspiracy' thread, so I'm slightly insulted you forgot the name... This is what the film is about:

Spoiler

UPDATE: For those people who have come here after watching the BBC "conspiracy files" 7/7 hit piece, you need to get something straight in your mind: When it comes to subjects like 9/11 and 7/7, the BBC do not do impartial "documentaries" - they do HIT PIECES that are designed solely to attack the truth movement. They don't cover the most important evidence and anomolies that contradict the official story. What they do is take a few of the very weakest anomolies that suggest an inside job, and just attack those. They also throw in as many ad-hominem, name-calling attacks as they can in order to leave the viewer with the impression that all truthers are crazy. If these are the lengths that the BBC have to go to in order to discredit the truth movement, then they are only proving that they cannot be trusted when it comes to producing impartial documentaries that cover ALL of the facts surrounding events like 9/11 and 7/7. The BBC is basically the government's propaganda wing, paid for by UK TV licence-fee payers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One of the most definitive and revealing documentaries covering the 7/7 London Bombings. Provides a detailed insight into the key events that took place that awful day, and looks into some decisive factors that reveal the bigger picture as to what really went on.

Whatever your views on this piece of work, one certainly has to admit that the evidence is compelling. Considering the sheer scale of the crime of 7/7, the number of casualties, and the apparent evidence of inside involvement, any reasonable person would agree that there should be an Official Investigation into the events of 7/7. Therefore it seems outrageously absurd that there has not been such an Investigation. The Blair administration did everything it could in order to ensure that an Inquiry did not take place. Do you smell a rat?

 

Apologies to Chandos and Coin, I don't have speakers on this computer so can't listen to the videos.

He's served 8 years of his sentence and has 3 months to live. That means his life sentence was actually 97% carried out, far higher than any prisoner who gets parole. I don't think his case is unusual under the legal system.

Coin, this 7/7 ripple effect if I'm understanding you right is part of the 'conspiracy' field. I wasn't referring to this, I was referring to the Birmingham and Guildford cases where innocent people were framed for IRA bombings and sent to jail for years. These are accepted proven cases. I'd put Lockierbie into the 'real politik' category rather than 'conspiracy'. I think it suits all concerned not to have the truth come out but that doesn't mean that the UK blew up the plane.

My own gut feeling would go along these lines. It was the Libyan government that did it, as opposed to the rumoured Iran (Iran was the most obvious suspect at first). After 9/11 Libya had the perfect opportunity to get back into the club of 'good' countries and being on the list of 'bad' ones was suddenly a lot more unpleasant. Libya patched up its relations and as part of this sent Al-Megrahi over as proof that it was now cooperating in the war on terror. Al-Megrahi was stitched up in a kangaroo court and sent to prison. I don't think he was innocent though. I'd say he was involved in terms of carrying out the bombing as what he considered part of his job working for Libyan intelligence. The evidence in the trial wasn't a full and truthful affair as they didn't want to raise questions over anybody they wanted to deal with in the future. Al-Megrahi is now dying and eligible for compassionate release. He's also pursuing an appeal which could raise awkward questions. His death in prison would give anti-Western Muslims a new martyr. Britain releases him and gets brownie points from Libya for future oil deals and a bit of a softer image in the Middle East. Libya obviously gets massive brownie points amongst its own population. The US talks tough about this to avoid taking criticism at home, though everybody else ignores this as they understand the politicians don't actually oppose it.

The above has very little basis in fact but would be my fun pet theory.

 

I think this is why I can't bring myself to care much about it. It's not like he's going to go golfing in his last three months or anything; he'll be bed-ridden and in pain. Whether in or out of prison, same fate, same final days. I agree PR wise this was dumb for the Scottish government, but other than that - big whoop. He's still won't live to see 2010. As far as I'm concerned it is his illness that is cheating justice, not his early release.

 

PR wise it was only bad in the US. It was good in the middle east I'd imagine. Mixed in Britain itself, they're uneasy that the truth is being suppressed.

 

We'll see. People have been known to recover sometimes. And IT IS "government health care" provided in the UK, so you know what that means.

 

...except now he has a heroes health care in Libya.