Compassionate Release For Lockerbie Bomber

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,247
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Should mercy be shown to him or should he have to die in prison?


Scotland frees terminally ill Lockerbie bomber
By BEN McCONVILLE, Associated Press Writer

EDINBURGH, Scotland – Scotland's government freed the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds Thursday, allowing him to die at home in Libya despite American protests that mercy should not be shown to the man responsible for the deaths of 270 people.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said Abdel Baset al-Megrahi's condition had deteriorated from prostate cancer. Al-Megrahi had only served some eight years of a life sentence, but MacAskill said he was bound by Scottish values to release him.

"Our belief dictates that justice be served but mercy be shown," MacAskill said, ruling that al-Megrahi "be released on compassionate grounds and be allowed to return to Libya to die."

"Some hurts can never heal, some scars can never fade," MacAskill said. "Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive ... However, Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power."

Al-Megrahi, 57, 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.

The former Libyan intelligence officer was sentenced to serve a minimum of 27 years in a Scottish prison for Britain's deadliest terrorist attack. But a 2007 review of his case found grounds for an appeal of his conviction, and many in Britain believe he is innocent.

The White House said it "deeply regrets" the decision to free al-Megrahi.

"As we have expressed repeatedly to officials of the government of the United Kingdom and to Scottish authorities, we continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland," it said in a statement. "On this day, we extend our deepest sympathies to the families who live every day with the loss of their loved ones."

Earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned MacAskill urging him not to release al-Megrahi, and seven U.S. senators wrote a letter with a similar message.

The Times of London reported Thursday that the private jet of Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, was to collect al-Megrahi at Glasgow Airport after he was released.

Al-Megrahi's trial and conviction led to a major shift in Libya's relationship with the West.

Gadhafi engineered a rapprochement with his former critics following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He renounced terrorism, dismantled Libya's secret nuclear program, accepted his government's responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation to the victims' families.

Western energy companies — including Britain's BP PLC — have moved into Libya in an effort to tap the country's vast oil and gas wealth.

Gadhafi has lobbied for the return of al-Megrahi, an issue which took on an added sense of urgency when he was diagnosed with cancer last year. His lawyers say his condition is deteriorating and doctors have given him less than three months to live.

The question of freeing al-Megrahi has divided Lockerbie families, with many in Britain in favor of setting him free, and many in the U.S. adamantly opposed.

British Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the attack, said Wednesday he would be glad to see al-Megrahi return home.

"It is right he should go home to die in dignity with his family. I believe it is our Christian duty to show mercy," he said.

But American families have largely been hostile to the idea.

"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."

Peter Sullivan of Akron, Ohio, whose college roommate Mike Doyle died at Lockerbie, said he believed Britain was putting commercial interests before the interests of the victims' relatives.

"The interest of big oil should not be the basis of a miscarriage of justice to let a murderer of 270 people be released," Sullivan said.
 
I believe in mercy, but he shouldn't have been set free. I would have no problem if he was moved to a more comfortable prison setting where he can receive better care and die in some comfort, but pain doesn't warrant freedom.
 
I don't really have an opinion on this. (shocking, I know).

But there were some really angry familiar members of the victims on NPR this morning. They say he's going to get a heroes welcome in Libya. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but if it is that alone would be enough for me to say they ought to keep him in prison. I don't think it's right to let him go and allowed him to be lionized and feted for what he did. (So I guess I do have an opinion on this. . .)
 
Yes I read that he was getting a hero's welcome-unless they had to go to the hospital first.

The judge said that his lack of compassion for his victims should not be a reason for Scotland to deny compassion to him. Even for the taking of 270 innocent lives. Saying that compassion should not be conditional as a general statement is one thing, but I would imagine that for their families it's a different story. They say he got compassion getting life rather than death because Scotland doesn't have the death penalty.

Should compassion be conditional and what should the "requirements" and limits be? Maybe that's the larger question.
 
The strange thing about this is that he probably didn't do the bombing. It was much more likely Iranian linked.

That's the real story here, to me.


Col Gadaffi’s regime eventually paid out £1.4 million in compensation to the families of the victims but that was seen by those sceptical of the new theory as one just of the deals which brought him back into the international fold and Al Megrahi was sacrificed for the same end.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of those killed, said after the trial into the bombing "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.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lockerbie-a-miscarriage-of-justice-1767682.html

There is, in my opinion (not necessarily shared by the families), an explanation for all this, an explanation so shocking that no one in high places can contemplate it. It is that the Lockerbie bombing was carried out not by Libyans at all but by terrorists based in Syria and hired by Iran to avenge the shooting down in the summer of 1988 of an Iranian civil airliner by a US warship. This was the line followed by both British and US police and intelligence investigators after Lockerbie. Through favoured newspapers like the Sunday Times, the investigators named the suspects - some of whom had been found with home-made bombs similar to the one used at Lockerbie.
This line of inquiry persisted until April 1989, when a phone call from President Bush senior to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned her not to proceed with it. A year later, British and US armed forces prepared for an attack on Saddam Hussein's occupying forces in Kuwait. Their coalition desperately needed troops from an Arab country. These were supplied by Syria, which promptly dropped out of the frame of Lockerbie suspects. Libya, not Syria or Iran, mysteriously became the suspect country, and in 1991 the US drew up an indictment against two Libyan suspects. The indictment was based on the "evidence" of a Libyan "defector", handsomely paid by the CIA. His story was such a fantastic farrago of lies and fantasies that it was thrown out by the Scottish judges.
In Britain, meanwhile, Thatcher, John Major and Blair obstinately turned down the bereaved families' requests for a full public inquiry into the worst mass murder in British history.
It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/31/lockerbie.libya
 
Some of the news sources here in Australia have also floated the idea that Libya may have taken some responsibility to allow itself back in the international community by showing they were tough on terrorism - state sanctioned or otherwise. Bizarre. I do remember when it actually happened that fingers were pointed at Iran but then they suddenly weren't. :crack:
 
A good argument for capital punishment.

So, it was said at the time, were the convicted 'Birmingham Six bombers'.

Birmingham Six - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is why I've said all along that although I strongly approve of the death penalty on moral grounds, the risks and consequences of a miscarriage of justice are too great to implement it except in very rare cases, e.g., war crimes, genocide, child murder, etc.

If we are going to apply capital punishment in cases of terrorism, then surely we must be consistent and start with Tony Blair and George W. Bush, otherwise we are just hypocrites.
 
The world in which, oh what's Obamaspeak for it now?

Oh yea, the world in which man-caused disasters kill innocent civilians.

So even though there is no 100% absolute knowledge this man is guilty, the label of "terrorist" makes it a good argument for capital punishment? I'm not seeing your point.
 
The strange thing about this is that he probably didn't do the bombing. It was much more likely Iranian linked.

This one always smelled funny to me, too.

I remember when it all happened, there was such intense outrage (rightfully so) and a need to find those responsible.

Still, the man was convicted. It was never overturned. And, imminent death through cancer is NO reason to be paroled.

Why people are cheering his homecoming is beyond me.
Do they believe he was innocent? Then, why no follow-up to overturn his conviction.
Or do they think he's a hero? Not a good thought all the way around.


Mark
 
This had very little to do with compassion, and a lot more to do with stopping his judicial appeal which the Government was running out of legal options to delay, and preventing the possibility of a new inquiry.

Trust me, the talk in Scotland about this has had very little to with compassion.
 
I love the fact that our Legal/Judicial/Penal systems here are so perfect that we should tell other countries how to run theirs.
 
There were 180 Americans on that flight.

Which leaves "x" number of non-Americans NOT telling Scotland how to run their affairs.

How many innocent Afghans/Iraqis have US forces killed ?

Iran Air Flight 655

Maybe we should get our own house in order first
 
There were 180 Americans on that flight.

Sorry but in that case arrest the guy and give him a trial yourself. Convicted by a Scots court, it's completely 100% to do with us how we treat him. The US can continue executing the mentally handicap, juveniles and those without the money for adequate council in your 18th century barbaric "justice" system. Sort that crap out then you can start preaching about justice.

The Scots judicial review panel found sufficient evidence to support an appeal on the basis of a miscarriage of justice. His appeal was scheduled for this year, it was unlikely he would have survived to the conclusion of the appeal but his death would have not stopped the appeal. The appeal would have proved embarrassing to the UK government and the US (if it had any shame) as the evidence against him is a) circumstantial, b) tainted by documented involvement from the CIA and MI5 including multi-million payments to key witnesses and c) the whole deal with Libya surrounding his handing over with the provision that no one else in Libya be sought for the bombing was tantamount to handing over a patsy.

The guy was probably involved, but so Ghaddifi and his security apparatus, why should the guy be left to die at the Scottish taxpayers expense while we and the US shower Ghaddifi with money and legitimacy for access to Libya's Oil and Natural gas supplies? The morals of justice seem to fall on deaf ears when Oil gets involved. The guy will be dead within 3 months. I'm glad I don't have to pay for his healthcare and his accommodation.
 
No, actually I think the president has said the right things about this particular situation.

Behind the scenes I hope he's showing his displeasure even more strongly.

There were 180 Americans on that flight.



Where was your outrage when Bush,Condi Rice was coddling this terrorist?

Bush Speaks With Gaddafi In Historic Phone Call


"Libya has taken important steps on the road to normalizing its relations with the international community, beginning with its renunciation in 2003 of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction," the statement said. "The United States will continue to work on the bilateral relationship with Libya, with the aim of establishing a dialogue that encompasses all subjects, including human rights reform and the fight against terrorism."

A senior White House official told the Reuters news agency that there was no record of any previous U.S. president speaking to Gaddafi, who seized power in a 1969 military coup. Rights groups say Gaddafi's reign has been marked by human rights abuses and restrictions on freedom of expression.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to meet Tuesday with Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who will be in Washington on a private visit, officials said. In early September, after the settlement deal, Rice became the most senior U.S. official to visit Libya in more than a half century.

The developments capped a remarkable turnaround in U.S.-Libyan relations that hit a low in the 1980s but began to improve after Gaddafi -- whom President Ronald Reagan once famously called the "mad dog of the Middle East" -- renounced weapons of mass destruction and terrorism in 2003.

Bush Speaks With Libya's Gaddafi in Historic Phone Call - washingtonpost.com
 
A good argument for capital punishment.

I disagree.

I can see why people are for the death penalty. But I don't believe the government should have the power to choose who lives and who dies. Also, being imprisoned for life is a worse punishment than death, IMO.

Anyways, back to the topic. I agree with BVS that he should have been moved to a facility to receive treatment, not set free.
 
Personally, I'm in two minds about his release. As I said I'm glad I'm not paying for his accommodation and healthcare anymore, and I have doubts to how involved he actually was, although ultimately I do believe he was at least tangentially involved but was only a part of a larger chain who offered him up as a patsy. However the scenes in Libya on his arrival sickened me, and his release put pay to any real attempt at appeal which would have been the only way to a full public enquiry and political pressure which would open the UK governments sealed files on the bombing .

Those screaming about justice, really should take a look at some of the documentation about this case, it's not as simple as we got the guy and he should die in prison. At best the guy was a courier, albeit one who knew exactly what he was arranging to be delivered. The idea he was the mastermind behind the whole thing or was acting alone is far fetched, and at the end of the day if he was only a cog in the wheel, I don't see where all this fury is coming from.
 
I disagree.

I can see why people are for the death penalty. But I don't believe the government should have the power to choose who lives and who dies. Also, being imprisoned for life is a worse punishment than death, IMO.

Except of course when "life" becomes something other than "life."

Whether you agree or disagree that the death penalty has the advantages of being a deterrent and equal justice to the crime; you must admit that at least it prevents this type of B.S.

There'll never be a hero's "welcome home" for Timothy Mcvey.
 
Whether you agree or disagree that the death penalty has the advantages of being a deterrent and equal justice to the crime; you must admit that at least it prevents this type of B.S.

So kill him so there will be no "hero's welcome"?

That's your point?

Really?
 
Back
Top Bottom