Megrahi had lodged an appeal which was due to be heard by the courts. It is likely there was new evidence which was going to be embarassing for the UK Government, The Scottish Legal System and possibly the US Government. He dropped his appeal and now he has been released on compassionate grounds. There was almost certainly a deal - if he dropped the appeal (saving this evidence from coming to light) he would be realeased. It has nothing to do with compassion. Megrahi is also most likely not responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing. The Scottish and UK Governments know that. This way they don't have to admit they were wrong. The whole saga makes me ashamed of our Legal System here in Scotland, not because he has been released, but because the appeal was never heard, we will never know the truth, and because Megrahi was ever imprissioned in the first place.
Lockerbie Terrorist Released
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I can only hope you get the help you need.terrorists are only oppressed people fighting with limited means..
EMOEVOLUTION
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]He served 8 years for intentionally killing 270 people. How is that justice being served? Am.. the dieing of cancer bit? There are lots of people dying of cancer in the world. I don't see how that absolves you of your crimes. He was not executed. He was kept humanely in jail for his punishment where he has access to medical care. He would have access to palliative care in jail. I'd say that is humane enough.Justice has more than be served.. He is dieing of Cancer (something no one can wish even on the worst of people) so i think he atleast deserves to die in comfortable surroundings.
RiseAgainst12
He should have been kept in jail.
So what is this evidence that absolves him?Megrahi had lodged an appeal which was due to be heard by the courts. It is likely there was new evidence which was going to be embarassing for the UK Government, The Scottish Legal System and possibly the US Government. He dropped his appeal and now he has been released on compassionate grounds. There was almost certainly a deal - if he dropped the appeal (saving this evidence from coming to light) he would be realeased. It has nothing to do with compassion. Megrahi is also most likely not responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing. The Scottish and UK Governments know that. This way they don't have to admit they were wrong. The whole saga makes me ashamed of our Legal System here in Scotland, not because he has been released, but because the appeal was never heard, we will never know the truth, and because Megrahi was ever imprissioned in the first place.
Kid-Icarus-
Yes, I'm sure this guy was totally being oppressed by 270 people he never met from 21 different countries, and I'm also sure he totally had no other means to voice his opinion other than putting a bomb on a plane. Totally.I think you touched on what made his crime particularly abhorrent to many folks, the randomness. Dude didn't know the folks on the plane, didn't care. He just wanted to kill a lot of people on a plane. Folks who didn't directly harm him or know him. A politician, military target. Something along those lines I would think even would seem less terrible.Theokhoth
Wouldn't you say that is what differentiates Civilised and lawful countries from Terrorists? The fact that they can show Humane acts of compassion..The most humane thing to do was to not blow up 270 people in the air.
psychobrew
Wouldn't you say that is what differentiates Civilised and lawful countries from Terrorists? The fact that they can show Humane acts of compassion.. Not to defend terrorists or anything but I'm sure they're capable of compassion. Just not interested in providing it to those they're targeting. There are terrorist organizations out there who in fact have full fledged social services programs for their own people. That's not a justifcation by any means. Just a note.[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
The most humane thing to do was to not blow up 270 people in the air.
RiseAgainst12
Some people view prison as a place to rehabilitate criminals, prepare them to reenter society, protect society...that is fine.
But others (this being me) view it as PUNISHMENT for your crimes...as a way to 1. deter and 2. repay the victims and their families.
So I believe he should have been left to rot and die a miserable, painful, cancer ridden death
Prisin is not about being humane...it is about vengeance and punishment.
This is why I do not believe in punishing those who commit "victimless crimes"...crimes where they only hurt themselves...I do not see the point
[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="sonicare"] He served 8 years for intentionally killing 270 people. How is that justice being served? sonicareAm.. the dieing of cancer bit? There are lots of people dying of cancer in the world. I don't see how that absolves you of your crimes. He was not executed. He was kept humanely in jail for his punishment where he has access to medical care. He would have access to palliative care in jail. I'd say that is humane enough. I guess it is how you look at it.. At the same time i don't see how spending your life in jail absolves you of your crimes either. This is more of a karmatic turn wouldn't you say? Hard to really explain just simply a way i would see it.. guess it is simply an Irish thing :P
Some people view prison as a place to rehabilitate criminals, prepare them to reenter society, protect society...that is fine.
But others (this being me) view it as PUNISHMENT for your crimes...as a way to 1. deter and 2. repay the victims and their families.
So I believe he should have been left to rot and die a miserable, painful, cancer ridden death
Prisin is not about being humane...it is about vengeance and punishment.
This is why I do not believe in punishing those who commit "victimless crimes"...crimes where they only hurt themselves...I do not see the point
Well that isn't how Britain treats it's Criminals.. and he was in a British Jail.. soo.[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]
[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
The most humane thing to do was to not blow up 270 people in the air.
Wouldn't you say that is what differentiates Civilised and lawful countries from Terrorists? The fact that they can show Humane acts of compassion.. Not to defend terrorists or anything but I'm sure they're capable of compassion. Just not interested in providing it to those they're targeting. There are terrorist organizations out there who in fact have full fledged social services programs for their own people. That's not a justifcation by any means. Just a note.Terrorist is a really hard word to use, Governments are to quick to throw the label around in my opinion.. but i am refering to Terrorist in the sense of those who actually carried out the attack, and not the organisation, at the moment of the attack.[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Well that isn't how Britain treats it's Criminals.. and he was in a British Jail.. soo.Some people view prison as a place to rehabilitate criminals, prepare them to reenter society, protect society...that is fine.
But others (this being me) view it as PUNISHMENT for your crimes...as a way to 1. deter and 2. repay the victims and their families.
So I believe he should have been left to rot and die a miserable, painful, cancer ridden death
Prisin is not about being humane...it is about vengeance and punishment.
This is why I do not believe in punishing those who commit "victimless crimes"...crimes where they only hurt themselves...I do not see the point
RiseAgainst12
What does that have to do with anything...I was giving my opinion on the topic at hand.
I did not state what was/was not the case in the real world...in the case across the pond
[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]So what is this evidence that absolves him? Well we don't know what all the new evidence was. From the BBC news website: "Secret documents before the Appeal Court - which even the defence has not seen - might have provided new information. They will now remain undisclosed, after the foreign secretary issued a Public Information Immunity certificate stating that to publish them would be to the detriment of UK national security." hmmm ...Megrahi had lodged an appeal which was due to be heard by the courts. It is likely there was new evidence which was going to be embarassing for the UK Government, The Scottish Legal System and possibly the US Government. He dropped his appeal and now he has been released on compassionate grounds. There was almost certainly a deal - if he dropped the appeal (saving this evidence from coming to light) he would be realeased. It has nothing to do with compassion. Megrahi is also most likely not responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing. The Scottish and UK Governments know that. This way they don't have to admit they were wrong. The whole saga makes me ashamed of our Legal System here in Scotland, not because he has been released, but because the appeal was never heard, we will never know the truth, and because Megrahi was ever imprissioned in the first place.
psychobrew
There has been plenty of evidence previously that casts doubt on his guilt however. It was a political trial from the beginning. Evidence at the previous appeal that the CIA withheld documents from the defence, that the FBI paid a witness $4million to testify. That the chief prosecution witness was paid to testify. The UN observer at the trial said there was a 'totalitarian nature' to that appeal and it 'beared the hallmarks of an intelligence operation'. One of Megrahi most vocal supporters is the Father of a girl who died in the bombing by the way. This case is not clear cut.
What does that have to do with anything...I was giving my opinion on the topic at hand.
I did not state what was/was not the case in the real world...in the case across the pond
Kinda came of a bit strong :P sorry, but It does refer to the fuss americans seem to be kicking off, which is a big part of the story.What does that have to do with anything...I was giving my opinion on the topic at hand.
I did not state what was/was not the case in the real world...in the case across the pond
Kinda came of a bit strong :P sorry, but It does refer to the fuss americans seem to be kicking off, which is a big part of the story. That is fine...no harm no foul But many (myself included) feel strongly about issues like this. Many people (once again, myself included) are tired of seeing unjustly hard sentences placed on poor people that commit victimless crimes. While people that commit atrocities serve less time/get less harsh sentences. In America, we will send someone to jail for life if they get busted smoking dope three times (the three strike rule)...no victims But this guy killed 250+ people and destroyed the lives of thousands (all the friends and family that most likely never lead normal lives after this event) Many just want the punishment to fit the crime...although I will admit, there is no punishment that could fit this crimeWhat does that have to do with anything...I was giving my opinion on the topic at hand.
I did not state what was/was not the case in the real world...in the case across the pond
Kinda came of a bit strong :P sorry, but It does refer to the fuss americans seem to be kicking off, which is a big part of the story. That is fine...no harm no foul But many (myself included) feel strongly about issues like this. Many people (once again, myself included) are tired of seeing unjustly hard sentences placed on poor people that commit victimless crimes. While people that commit atrocities serve less time/get less harsh sentences. In America, we will send someone to jail for life if they get busted smoking dope three times (the three strike rule)...no victims But this guy killed 250+ people and destroyed the lives of thousands (all the friends and family that most likely never lead normal lives after this event) Many just want the punishment to fit the crime...although I will admit, there is no punishment that could fit this crime I can see where you are coming from, but it is simply a clash of different cultures.. I guess i kinda forgot that myself when i saw it from an American perspective. They view Prison alot differently than the British so it is understandable how they feel about the issue. I guess there isn't much more than personal opinion to throw around, but at the end of the day it was a British, in particular Scottish, court that sentenced him and held him.. and so there choice on the matter of letting him die with his family.[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]Kinda came of a bit strong :P sorry, but It does refer to the fuss americans seem to be kicking off, which is a big part of the story.RiseAgainst12That is fine...no harm no foul But many (myself included) feel strongly about issues like this. Many people (once again, myself included) are tired of seeing unjustly hard sentences placed on poor people that commit victimless crimes. While people that commit atrocities serve less time/get less harsh sentences. In America, we will send someone to jail for life if they get busted smoking dope three times (the three strike rule)...no victims But this guy killed 250+ people and destroyed the lives of thousands (all the friends and family that most likely never lead normal lives after this event) Many just want the punishment to fit the crime...although I will admit, there is no punishment that could fit this crime I can see where you are coming from, but it is simply a clash of different cultures.. I guess i kinda forgot that myself when i saw it from an American perspective. They view Prison alot differently than the British so it is understandable how they feel about the issue. I guess there isn't much more than personal opinion to throw around, but at the end of the day it was a British, in particular Scottish, court that sentenced him and held him.. and so there choice on the matter of letting him die with his family.
I totally agree.
Different cultures (even ones as close as British and American) have different values.
I have no right to say how one country should operate (as long as they are not hurting/oppressing people)
I was more saying how I think things SHOULD run in the U.S. and making statements about things that I disagree with here.
But to each his own...in this case...to each country its own
I disagree on the compassion issue. I think the british courts already showed him compassion. This man was convicted of murdering 270+ civilians. It was a premeditated crime and he cared nothing for the lives of the people that he willfully destroyed. Yet, the courts showed him extremecompassion. He was not tortured. He was not turned over to the families of his victims. He was not executed. Unlike his victims, his life was spared. He was sentenced to stay in prison where he was treated humanely and had access to medical services. That by itself, is showing a difference between the british law system and that of this man.
If this man is simply allowed to walk free because he got sick, then justice was not served. He was in jail for only 8 years. People have served more time for much less offences. He certainly should be treated humanely in jail, and have access to palliative care. But I don't believe that giving him a pass because he is sick is right.
I would have kept him in Jail. They never ask me :(duxup
Well the Scottish doctors gave him less than a month to live, because of his debilitating cancer, and from a human rights perspective I think it's fine to let him spend his final weeks with his family.
[QUOTE="duxup"]I would have kept him in Jail. They never ask me :(Hot-Tamale
Well the Scottish doctors gave him less than a month to live, because of his debilitating cancer, and from a human rights perspective I think it's fine to let him spend his final weeks with his family.
I'm not one to pull out this rhetoric often but the 200 plus victims didn't get to spend a month saying goodbye to their families and he choose that for those people and their families. Life in prison is until you die. Let him die there.I disagree on the compassion issue. I think the british courts already showed him compassion. This man was convicted of murdering 270+ civilians. It was a premeditated crime and he cared nothing for the lives of the people that he willfully destroyed. Yet, the courts showed him extremecompassion. He was not tortured. He was not turned over to the families of his victims. He was not executed. Unlike his victims, his life was spared. He was sentenced to stay in prison where he was treated humanely and had access to medical services. That by itself, is showing a difference between the british law system and that of this man.
If this man is simply allowed to walk free because he got sick, then justice was not served. He was in jail for only 8 years. People have served more time for much less offences. He certainly should be treated humanely in jail, and have access to palliative care. But I don't believe that giving him a pass because he is sick is right.
I don't think a man being allowed to spend his last few weeks of life at home whilst dieing of cancer is walking free. Just because this punishment wasn't handed by the courts doesn't exactly mean it wasn't punishment.. a power greater than us clearly is punishing him for his crimes wouldn't you say?[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
I would have kept him in Jail. They never ask me :(duxup
Well the Scottish doctors gave him less than a month to live, because of his debilitating cancer, and from a human rights perspective I think it's fine to let him spend his final weeks with his family.
I'm not one to pull out this rhetoric often but the 200 plus victims didn't get to spend a month saying goodbye to their families and he choose that for those people and their families. Life in prison is until you die. Let him die there. Gonna bring up my previous point of that is the difference in the British courts and him, the terrorist.[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
Well the Scottish doctors gave him less than a month to live, because of his debilitating cancer, and from a human rights perspective I think it's fine to let him spend his final weeks with his family.
I'm not one to pull out this rhetoric often but the 200 plus victims didn't get to spend a month saying goodbye to their families and he choose that for those people and their families. Life in prison is until you die. Let him die there. Gonna bring up my previous point of that is the difference in the British courts and him, the terrorist. Huh? The post about a higher power punishing him?I disagree on the compassion issue. I think the british courts already showed him compassion. This man was convicted of murdering 270+ civilians. It was a premeditated crime and he cared nothing for the lives of the people that he willfully destroyed. Yet, the courts showed him extremecompassion. He was not tortured. He was not turned over to the families of his victims. He was not executed. Unlike his victims, his life was spared. He was sentenced to stay in prison where he was treated humanely and had access to medical services. That by itself, is showing a difference between the british law system and that of this man.
If this man is simply allowed to walk free because he got sick, then justice was not served. He was in jail for only 8 years. People have served more time for much less offences. He certainly should be treated humanely in jail, and have access to palliative care. But I don't believe that giving him a pass because he is sick is right.
I don't think a man being allowed to spend his last few weeks of life at home whilst dieing of cancer is walking free. Just because this punishment wasn't handed by the courts doesn't exactly mean it wasn't punishment.. a power greater than us clearly is punishing him for his crimes wouldn't you say? So people with cancer are being punished for their crimes? or just people with cancer who you think should be punished are being punished by a greater power?I disagree on the compassion issue. I think the british courts already showed him compassion. This man was convicted of murdering 270+ civilians. It was a premeditated crime and he cared nothing for the lives of the people that he willfully destroyed. Yet, the courts showed him extremecompassion. He was not tortured. He was not turned over to the families of his victims. He was not executed. Unlike his victims, his life was spared. He was sentenced to stay in prison where he was treated humanely and had access to medical services. That by itself, is showing a difference between the british law system and that of this man.
If this man is simply allowed to walk free because he got sick, then justice was not served. He was in jail for only 8 years. People have served more time for much less offences. He certainly should be treated humanely in jail, and have access to palliative care. But I don't believe that giving him a pass because he is sick is right.
I don't think a man being allowed to spend his last few weeks of life at home whilst dieing of cancer is walking free. Just because this punishment wasn't handed by the courts doesn't exactly mean it wasn't punishment.. a power greater than us clearly is punishing him for his crimes wouldn't you say? So people with cancer are being punished for their crimes? or just people with cancer who you think should be punished are being punished by a greater power? No not at all. What i am getting at is simply that in this case nothing can really be punishment enough for his crime.. cancer is a horrible disease to have, And in a sick twist possibly the most fitting punishment for him.[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]
Wouldn't you say that is what differentiates Civilised and lawful countries from Terrorists? The fact that they can show Humane acts of compassion..
Not to defend terrorists or anything but I'm sure they're capable of compassion. Just not interested in providing it to those they're targeting. There are terrorist organizations out there who in fact have full fledged social services programs for their own people. That's not a justifcation by any means. Just a note.Terrorist is a really hard word to use, Governments are to quick to throw the label around in my opinion.. but i am refering to Terrorist in the sense of those who actually carried out the attack, and not the organisation, at the moment of the attack.Its amazing to read people defend this man. I bet there were at least 2 people on that plane who had cancer. So apparently it was human to blow them up in mid-air. Accord to the argument some of you are making to defend him. The man shouldn't have been in jail, he should have been executed. That way he would be a drain on the Scottish economy sitting in jail. Its not even eye for an eye, its 1 eye for 270. He's a heartless terrorist who does not deserve the pathetic hero welcome he's getting in Libya. He doesn't even deserve to be alive himself.
They shoulda let his ass rot in jail. That guy killed innocent people and he gets let go because he has ****ing cancer? Is that all it takes to get away with mass murder?
are you serious!?! this is such b.s. he should be tortured then shot and this is why I hate obama XD4NTESINF3RNOX
You should lern2read. Obama highly disagreed with this action.
[QUOTE="XD4NTESINF3RNOX"]are you serious!?! this is such b.s. he should be tortured then shot and this is why I hate obama Hungry_Jello
You should lern2read. Obama highly disagreed with this action.
lol i skimmed most of it now i see it :P[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]Kinda came of a bit strong :P sorry, but It does refer to the fuss americans seem to be kicking off, which is a big part of the story.RiseAgainst12That is fine...no harm no foul But many (myself included) feel strongly about issues like this. Many people (once again, myself included) are tired of seeing unjustly hard sentences placed on poor people that commit victimless crimes. While people that commit atrocities serve less time/get less harsh sentences. In America, we will send someone to jail for life if they get busted smoking dope three times (the three strike rule)...no victims But this guy killed 250+ people and destroyed the lives of thousands (all the friends and family that most likely never lead normal lives after this event) Many just want the punishment to fit the crime...although I will admit, there is no punishment that could fit this crime I can see where you are coming from, but it is simply a clash of different cultures.. I guess i kinda forgot that myself when i saw it from an American perspective. They view Prison alot differently than the British so it is understandable how they feel about the issue. I guess there isn't much more than personal opinion to throw around, but at the end of the day it was a British, in particular Scottish, court that sentenced him and held him.. and so there choice on the matter of letting him die with his family. And that wouldn't be a problem if so many American lives weren't lost. I think it's clear that the British prison system favors the criminal.
[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] That is fine...no harm no foul But many (myself included) feel strongly about issues like this. Many people (once again, myself included) are tired of seeing unjustly hard sentences placed on poor people that commit victimless crimes. While people that commit atrocities serve less time/get less harsh sentences. In America, we will send someone to jail for life if they get busted smoking dope three times (the three strike rule)...no victims But this guy killed 250+ people and destroyed the lives of thousands (all the friends and family that most likely never lead normal lives after this event) Many just want the punishment to fit the crime...although I will admit, there is no punishment that could fit this crimepsychobrewI can see where you are coming from, but it is simply a clash of different cultures.. I guess i kinda forgot that myself when i saw it from an American perspective. They view Prison alot differently than the British so it is understandable how they feel about the issue. I guess there isn't much more than personal opinion to throw around, but at the end of the day it was a British, in particular Scottish, court that sentenced him and held him.. and so there choice on the matter of letting him die with his family. And that wouldn't be a problem if so many American lives weren't lost. I think it's clear that the British prison system favors the criminal.
This man is going to die in a few weeks time. He is going to die a slow, painful, cancer-ridden death. Don't we have any decency? Let the man see his family. It doesn't do any good to disallow him from seeing his poor children and wife (whom he hasn't seen for over a decade, by the way) one last time.
And that wouldn't be a problem if so many American lives weren't lost. I think it's clear that the British prison system favors the criminal.[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"] I can see where you are coming from, but it is simply a clash of different cultures.. I guess i kinda forgot that myself when i saw it from an American perspective. They view Prison alot differently than the British so it is understandable how they feel about the issue. I guess there isn't much more than personal opinion to throw around, but at the end of the day it was a British, in particular Scottish, court that sentenced him and held him.. and so there choice on the matter of letting him die with his family. Hot-Tamale
This man is going to die in a few weeks time. He is going to die a slow, painful, cancer-ridden death. Don't we have any decency? Let the man see his family. It doesn't do any good to disallow him from seeing his poor children and wife (whom he hasn't seen for over a decade, by the way) one last time.
Did this man show any decency when he blew up 270 people? By keeping him in prison, you're sending a message to other criminals that your justice system isn't a cake walk and you can't get away with murder. His family lived in Scotland for years and visited him often, so please don't talk about what you don't know. And it's not so he can see his family one more time, it's many times over many months. This is really insulting for those who lost loved ones in the meaningless attack, and it's a win for terrorists. Don't you have any decency and respect for the victims? MacAskill's excuse on why he didn't transfer the terrorist to Libya so he could finish his sentence is even more ridiculous and inulting. Since he promised the victims that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland, he let him go instead of transfering him.[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] And that wouldn't be a problem if so many American lives weren't lost. I think it's clear that the British prison system favors the criminal.psychobrew
This man is going to die in a few weeks time. He is going to die a slow, painful, cancer-ridden death. Don't we have any decency? Let the man see his family. It doesn't do any good to disallow him from seeing his poor children and wife (whom he hasn't seen for over a decade, by the way) one last time.
Did this man show any decency when he blew up 270 people? By keeping him in prison, you're sending a message to other criminals that your justice system isn't a cake walk and you can't get away with murder. His family lived in Scotland for years and visited him often, so please don't talk about what you don't know. And it's not so he can see his family one more time, it's many times over many months. This is really insulting for those who lost loved ones in the meaningless attack, and it's a win for terrorists. Don't you have any decency and respect for the victims? MacAskill's excuse on why he didn't transfer the terrorist to Libya so he could finish his sentence is even more ridiculous and inulting. Since he promised the victims that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland, he let him go instead of transfering him.I think it's morbid for the victims families to actively seek retribution of that magnitude. He's going to die a painful death anyway, why would it send a message to terrorists that they will 'get out sooner' if one dying criminal does so? And nowhere does it say that al-Megrahi's family ever visited him.
Did this man show any decency when he blew up 270 people? By keeping him in prison, you're sending a message to other criminals that your justice system isn't a cake walk and you can't get away with murder. His family lived in Scotland for years and visited him often, so please don't talk about what you don't know. And it's not so he can see his family one more time, it's many times over many months. This is really insulting for those who lost loved ones in the meaningless attack, and it's a win for terrorists. Don't you have any decency and respect for the victims? MacAskill's excuse on why he didn't transfer the terrorist to Libya so he could finish his sentence is even more ridiculous and inulting. Since he promised the victims that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland, he let him go instead of transfering him.[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
This man is going to die in a few weeks time. He is going to die a slow, painful, cancer-ridden death. Don't we have any decency? Let the man see his family. It doesn't do any good to disallow him from seeing his poor children and wife (whom he hasn't seen for over a decade, by the way) one last time.
Hot-Tamale
I think it's morbid for the victims families to actively seek retribution of that magnitude. He's going to die a painful death anyway, why would it send a message to terrorists that they will 'get out sooner' if one dying criminal does so? And nowhere does it say that al-Megrahi's family ever visited him.
What difference does it make if that detail wasn't in the article? It's still a fact and you still jumped to an untrue conclusion. If you really need to see it in an article, here you go.
It's still disgusting that the Scots care more about al-Megrahi's family than the families of the victims.
I know you come on here just to annoy other users, but really with such a vague statement nobody can take you seriously. Oppressed people? Oppression: to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power. A government agent is not being "oppressed." On another note Al-Qaeda was not an oppressed group of people. In fact they pretty much ran a good portion of the country they were based in. "Fighting with limited means" is such a vague statement. Every military, terrorist, person, etc. in the world fights with "limited means." There is no such thing as "unlimited means."terrorists are only oppressed people fighting with limited means..
EMOEVOLUTION
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
[QUOTE="psychobrew"] Did this man show any decency when he blew up 270 people? By keeping him in prison, you're sending a message to other criminals that your justice system isn't a cake walk and you can't get away with murder. His family lived in Scotland for years and visited him often, so please don't talk about what you don't know. And it's not so he can see his family one more time, it's many times over many months. This is really insulting for those who lost loved ones in the meaningless attack, and it's a win for terrorists. Don't you have any decency and respect for the victims? MacAskill's excuse on why he didn't transfer the terrorist to Libya so he could finish his sentence is even more ridiculous and inulting. Since he promised the victims that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland, he let him go instead of transfering him.psychobrew
I think it's morbid for the victims families to actively seek retribution of that magnitude. He's going to die a painful death anyway, why would it send a message to terrorists that they will 'get out sooner' if one dying criminal does so? And nowhere does it say that al-Megrahi's family ever visited him.
What difference does it make if that detail wasn't in the article? It's still a fact and you still jumped to an untrue conclusion. If you really need to see it in an article, here you go.
It's still disgusting that the Scots care more about al-Megrahi's family than the families of the victims.
I'm simply saying that a Hammurabi's code foreign policy (an eye for an eye...) doesn't make for a good argument for human rights. Does the 9/11 attack mean we automatically have to kill 3,000 Arabs? Of course not. In the interest of human rights, I don't think it's right to torture someone just because they made a mistake, even if that mistake cost hundreds of lives. Perhaps I'm nieve, but I think that second chances are a facet of democracies the world over, and it would be unwise to compromise our democratic principles.
[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
I think it's morbid for the victims families to actively seek retribution of that magnitude. He's going to die a painful death anyway, why would it send a message to terrorists that they will 'get out sooner' if one dying criminal does so? And nowhere does it say that al-Megrahi's family ever visited him.
Hot-Tamale
What difference does it make if that detail wasn't in the article? It's still a fact and you still jumped to an untrue conclusion. If you really need to see it in an article, here you go.
It's still disgusting that the Scots care more about al-Megrahi's family than the families of the victims.
1) I'm simply saying that a Hammurabi's code foreign policy (an eye for an eye...) doesn't make for a good argument for human rights.
2) Does the 9/11 attack mean we automatically have to kill 3,000 Arabs? Of course not.
3) In the interest of human rights, I don't think it's right to torture someone just because they made a mistake, even if that mistake cost hundreds of lives.
4) Perhaps I'm nieve, but I think that second chances are a facet of democracies the world over, and it would be unwise to compromise our democratic principles.
1) Whoever said it did? Nobody is killing the guy. Nobody is torturing the guy. What he's doing is serving time for a commiting a horrible act, andthat can be done humanely. In your world, punishment simply wouldn't exist and people would be literally getting away with murder.
2) Nobody ever talked about killing 3,000 Arabs and I'm a little confused how that thought popped in to your head. Those responsible for 9/11 certainly need to be punished though -- especially concidering they'd do it again in a heartbeat.
3) Nobody is getting tortured. Not even close. What's happening is someone was facing the consequences for their actions -- actions that took away the rights of 270 people and their families. How would you feel if your sister or your girlfriend or your mother was on that plane?
4) Second chances are fine for most crimes, however, when you kill 270 people in cold blood you can not be trusted in society -- especially not after eight short years. This guy didn't even face the consequences for his actions, and that's outrageous.
So what is this evidence that absolves him? Well we don't know what all the new evidence was. From the BBC news website: "Secret documents before the Appeal Court - which even the defence has not seen - might have provided new information. They will now remain undisclosed, after the foreign secretary issued a Public Information Immunity certificate stating that to publish them would be to the detriment of UK national security." hmmm ...[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]
Megrahi had lodged an appeal which was due to be heard by the courts. It is likely there was new evidence which was going to be embarassing for the UK Government, The Scottish Legal System and possibly the US Government. He dropped his appeal and now he has been released on compassionate grounds. There was almost certainly a deal - if he dropped the appeal (saving this evidence from coming to light) he would be realeased. It has nothing to do with compassion. Megrahi is also most likely not responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing. The Scottish and UK Governments know that. This way they don't have to admit they were wrong. The whole saga makes me ashamed of our Legal System here in Scotland, not because he has been released, but because the appeal was never heard, we will never know the truth, and because Megrahi was ever imprissioned in the first place.
Kid-Icarus-
There has been plenty of evidence previously that casts doubt on his guilt however. It was a political trial from the beginning. Evidence at the previous appeal that the CIA withheld documents from the defence, that the FBI paid a witness $4million to testify. That the chief prosecution witness was paid to testify. The UN observer at the trial said there was a 'totalitarian nature' to that appeal and it 'beared the hallmarks of an intelligence operation'. One of Megrahi most vocal supporters is the Father of a girl who died in the bombing by the way. This case is not clear cut.
Just to reiterate some of these points. Here is a selection of quotes from people who have been a part of or studied the Lockerbie Bombing trial. These are respected people, not conspiracy crackpots:"I went into that court thinking I was going to see the trial of those who were responsible for the murder of my daughter. I came out thinking he had been framed. I am very afraid that we saw steps taken to ensure that a politically desired result was obtained" - Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing.
"I am sorry to admit that my impression is that justice was not done and that we are dealing here with a rather spectacular case of a miscarriage of justice" - Dr. Hans Koechler, the UN Observer at the trial, on the court's decision in rejecting the first appeal.
"the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for 100 years" - Professor Robert Black QC - prof. of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh and a highly respected lawyer, commenting on Megrahi's conviction.
"If they had been tried by an ordinary Scottish jury of 15, who were given standard instructions about how they must approach the evidence, standard instructions about reasonable doubt and what must happen if there is a reasonable doubt about the evidence, no Scottish jury could have convicted Megrahi on the evidence led at the trial." - Professor Robert Black QC
"I do not accept his [Kenny MacAskill's] endorsement of the guilt of Mr Megrahi, whom I continue to believe had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime of Lockerbie." - Sir Tam Dalyell former member of the UK Parliament on Megrahi's release yesterday.
The worst part, is, everyne in Libya is going to treat him as a hero, even though he's just a cowardly pos.
Showing compassion to man who murders hundreds. How intriguing.
It's still disgusting that the Scots care more about al-Megrahi's family than the families of the victims.psychobrew
No we don't. It was our damn politicians who made the bloody decision, its not like we were asked for our opinions on the matter and held a vote. As far as I'm concerned he should have rotted in jail for his crimes.
Why was I not consulted about this?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment