Lockerbie

[GO_AV8_DevilDog]

Advocates for this move would believe that since we are showing our compassion that they would return the favor. Which might have been true in a conventional war and a conventional pow. However the distinction is this is not a conventional war, and he is not a POW, he is an outright murdering criminal, not a freedom fighter. He should have hung for what he did or spent his remaining days in a cell. Why should anyone extend humanity and compassion to anyone who had completely abandoned it as much as he did.

 

[mmx1]

Advocates for this move would believe that since we are showing our compassion that they would return the favor. Which might have been true in a conventional war and a conventional pow. However the distinction is this is not a conventional war, and he is not a POW, he is an outright murdering criminal, not a freedom fighter. He should have hung for what he did or spent his remaining days in a cell. Why should anyone extend humanity and compassion to anyone who had completely abandoned it as much as he did.

I suggest you not ascribe motives that aren't there. At least for the Scottish government, this was not about expecting compassion from Libya. It was for them a principled stance.

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.
...
In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.

Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.

But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

For these reasons - and these reasons alone - it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Safer-and-stronger/lockerbiedecision

I don't agree, but I'm nowhere near angry enough to stop drinking and buying scotch.

 

[PropAddict]

Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown.

I would counter that, in this instance, the latter has completely undermined attempts at serving the former.

It's always interesting to try to apply one sense of morality on a different culture, with differing conceptions of morality, but in this case: they are wrong.

I mean, 20 years ago as a younger man with a full life ahead, this man murdered 240 people. Now, with only 3 months of pain and death to look forward to, there is absolutely nothing to dissuade him from doing it (or worse) again. Hell, he knows the scots won't even arrest him.:icon_rage

They have released a more dangerous criminal than the one they incarcerated, and all moral relativism aside, that is a frightening prospect.

 

[xj220]

I would counter that mercy and compassion were shown when they treated him for his disease.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Agree with the above. The only thing I find more appalling than his release is the reception he is getting from everyone. Unbelievable. You would never guess he was a terrorist responsible for 240 deaths. Still waiting for someone to come into this forum and suggest that his release was the right thing to do...

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Agree with the above. The only thing I find more appalling than his release is the reception he is getting from everyone. Unbelievable. You would never guess he was a terrorist responsible for 240 deaths. Still waiting for someone to come into this forum and suggest that his release was the right thing to do...

I'll take that on.

From the Scottish perception, it was the right thing to do. The whole principle of compassion rests upon the individual or state granting it. To release someone of his background, considering the crimes committed, and the people killed is to show true compassion.

In addition, there are many people within Scotland who believe that this individual was not actually involved in the incident. As a matter of fact, his case had just been granted an appeal but he withdrew that petition when they released him.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/19/lockerbie-bomber-drops-appeal-115875-21607212/

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

I'll take that on.

From the Scottish perception, it was the right thing to do. The whole principle of compassion rests upon the individual or state granting it. To release someone of his background, considering the crimes committed, and the people killed is to show true compassion.

In addition, there are many people within Scotland who believe that this individual was not actually involved in the incident. As a matter of fact, his case had just been granted an appeal but he withdrew that petition when they released him.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/19/lockerbie-bomber-drops-appeal-115875-21607212/

I'm aware of the Scottish perception (which is BS in my opinion). The question is, do you, as an American, think this was the right thing to do?

 

[PropAddict]

there are many people within Scotland who believe that this individual was not actually involved in the incident.

There are many people in this country who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by our own government or that the Holocaust never happened. Belief or masses of believers does not make it correct.

Second, the Scottish principle of compassion is a provision in the law, not an inalienable right, as you're implying. It is a case by case option that may be applied; a "should not a shall" scenario. One Scottish judge has decided this guy's case qualifies for application; I'm sure you could find others to disagree. On another day, in front of another bench, it could have all gone differently. It is far from an obvious "this is what the Scots believe" case.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Deleted.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

There are many people in this country who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by our own government or that the Holocaust never happened. Belief or masses of believers does not make it correct.

Second, the Scottish principle of compassion is a provision in the law, not an inalienable right, as you're implying. It is a case by case option that may be applied; a "should not a shall" scenario. One Scottish judge has decided this guy's case qualifies for application; I'm sure you could find others to disagree. On another day, in front of another bench, it could have all gone differently. It is far from an obvious "this is what the Scots believe" case.

No, I don't believe that I implied that it was an inalienable right. My point is that we, as Americans, can feel that it was a stupid and unjust decision, but for the Scottish, this was about their ideals. We are looking at it and determining that al-Meghari should not have received compassion, but the standard should be from the eyes of the individual granting compassion and not the person to receive it.

From what I remember about hearing/reading about this provision of law is that there have been 30 requests for release and 23 were granted; those instances of denial involved members of the IRA who had gone on a hunger strike. From the Scottish perception, compassion was not granted due to the fact their ills were self-inflicted.

http://news.channelone.com/ap/international/Lockerbie-bomber-release-stirs-diplomatic-row-112584

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

I'm aware of the Scottish perception (which is BS in my opinion). The question is, do you, as an American, think this was the right thing to do?

I had previously stated how I felt earlier in this thread.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Still waiting for someone to come into this forum and suggest that his release was the right thing to do..

Quag, then if this does not apply to you, my wait continues.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Quag, then if this does not apply to you, my wait continues.

You can't change the rules mid-game, Ken!

 

[Red Pilgrim]

There are many people in this country who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by our own government or that the Holocaust never happened.

'Many' is an incredibly relative word to use.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

'Many' is an incredibly relative word to use.

I think "many" is a fair word to use. I've personally run into 5 or 6 people who think that the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11. Afterall, he didn't say the majority, just many.