PDA

View Full Version : Lockerbie Bomber to be released


Astor
08-20-2009, 09:11 AM
This afternoon, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will announce the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has been serving a life sentence for the Lockerbie Bombing in 1988.

This comes amid fierce criticism from many in the international community, most notably the families of the victims, and many within the US and UK goverments.

Is it right that he is released? Or, in the words of Hilary Clinton, is his release "absolutely wrong"?

adamqd
08-20-2009, 09:17 AM
He should be made to die alone in his cold cell, I'm not so sure he showed "compassion" when his Victims were taking their last breaths.

Q
08-20-2009, 02:34 PM
For once I agree with Hilary Clinton.

Darth Avlectus
08-20-2009, 03:49 PM
It's times like this we all want to put aside the civics of modern day society, take out our guns and just turn guys like him into human swiss cheese. That's what I think.

All Grand Theft Auto fantasies aside, there is only one rationalization (amidst explanations) for something like this: $$$$$$$$$! I'm not so sure judges who allow hard criminals to roam free like this don't know what they are doing. Looking at this sort of thing with a very cynical eye, I theorize it is somehow perversely profitable. But I guess that's just me and my nuttery. I mean, think about it. Backlash from this could, in turn, generate revenue for the system.

It's all just wrong, I tell ya.

mimartin
08-20-2009, 05:14 PM
While I can understand the compassionate part considering that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer. However, I did not see him or the other perpetrators of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing showing any compassion for their victims. They were not allowed to go home and get their affairs in order before their death.

Considering I watched my real father die of prostate cancer, I feel extremely guilty being happy that another human would suffer that fate, but in this case I am. :(

SW01
08-20-2009, 05:36 PM
It's farcical.

Time off for being sick should have no place when considering punishment for the deaths of 270 people. Utter lack of remorse doesn't help matters.

Says a lot for the state of sentencing and imprisonment in this country.

Jae Onasi
08-20-2009, 05:42 PM
Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.

Astor
08-20-2009, 06:09 PM
I can only really echo all of your comments - I could understand if this were a lesser crime, but mass murder on such a scale should never be forgiven. The man was supposed to die in Jail, and should have, by all accounts.

It's farcical.

Time off for being sick should have no place when considering punishment for the deaths of 270 people. Utter lack of remorse doesn't help matters.

Says a lot for the state of sentencing and imprisonment in this country.

It puzzles me that the Prime Minister allowed this to be handled solely by the Scottish Government. Yes, he was tried by a Scottish court, and a prisoner of the Scottish government, but leaving it in the hands of one minister is negligent at best, especially when this has clearly had an impact on our foreign relations.

Litofsky
08-20-2009, 07:20 PM
I'm going to join the chorus of people saying that this decision is absolute idiocy. No compassion was shown to the two hundred seventy people who died, and no compassion should be shown to the perpetrator.

Kudos, Scotland.

jrrtoken
08-20-2009, 07:21 PM
Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.Egocentric much?

Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?

Litofsky
08-20-2009, 08:46 PM
Egocentric much?

Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?

It's my opinion that, in certain cases, this idea ends up causing more harm than good. This man was convicted of killing two hundred seventy people. Call it Biblical, but I don't think that he should enjoy comforts that those he murdered didn't have.

Jae Onasi
08-20-2009, 09:12 PM
Egocentric much?Is there some reason why you need to be impolite? You've made a gross and incorrect assumption about my motives on top of it.

Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?Did he show any mercy to the people he blew up? He was shown mercy by not being put to death for his crimes as he would have been under Shari'a law in his own culture. Has he expressed regret for his crimes? No? Prison for life means just that--for life. Not 'for life til you're about to die, and then we'll let you out so you can meet up with your cell and plan more murders.' This is a safety issue for the entire world, not just me, since it's highly unlikely that I'm in a place that would be affected if he plans another crime. He is a menace to the entire world as a successful terrorist, and Scotland erred greatly by letting out such a dangerous man. The minister who allowed his release was foolish for doing this and putting more people in danger of experiencing the same thing.

Q
08-20-2009, 09:24 PM
Not to join the pile-on, but I don't see anything merciless about letting him die in prison where he belongs. In the interests of justice, an appropriate sentence would have involved his being pushed out of a plane at 30,000 feet without a parachute to give him a taste of what he did to those people.

JediAthos
08-20-2009, 09:46 PM
I too believe that the Scottish minister is seriously mistaken if he thinks a man with cancer can't plan acts of terror.

After all...Bin Laden has kidney disease, and we know that horrors that he as brought about.

Totenkopf
08-20-2009, 11:13 PM
People die in jail all the time (and not just at the hands of other criminals). His cancer could be treated in prison. In the case of Agca, it was attempted murder of one person (even if it was the Pope) vs actually murdering almost 300 in the Lockerbie case. He should "rot" in jail till he's ready for his dirt nap. No misplaced "mercy" for this schmuck.

Darth Avlectus
08-21-2009, 01:27 AM
Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly.

You're absolutely right: he should be treated absolutely the same as anybody else should be under those circumstances.

After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?

That was an example of misplaced judgment, as is this case. I have to agree with Litofsky and Jae.

Proof of a criminal being remorseless might seem like a noble idea, but test out the reality of that. You find out the truth in due time when it's too late and more had to die needlessly. Keeping him in his cell to live out the rest of his days is the solution with the least amount of possible harm to be done in the big picture.
People are not locked up b/c they are good and nice. You turn your back on people like this and they'll strike the moment you're oblivious to them. Ferrile in civil society is dangerous. Talk to prison counselors or probation departments if you don't believe me.

jrrtoken
08-21-2009, 07:33 AM
Did he show any mercy to the people he blew up? He was shown mercy by not being put to death for his crimes as he would have been under Shari'a law in his own culture. Has he expressed regret for his crimes? No? Prison for life means just that--for life. Not 'for life til you're about to die, and then we'll let you out so you can meet up with your cell and plan more murders.'Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways.This is a safety issue for the entire world, not just me, since it's highly unlikely that I'm in a place that would be affected if he plans another crime. He is a menace to the entire world as a successful terrorist, and Scotland erred greatly by letting out such a dangerous man. The minister who allowed his release was foolish for doing this and putting more people in danger of experiencing the same thing."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.

Totenkopf
08-21-2009, 08:33 AM
Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.

What exactly are you proposing as a just punishment for someone convicted of killing almost 300 people? How is "fixing" someone particularly relevant if they are locked away for the rest of their life? Sort of hard to enact your vengeful tendencies when you're locked in a 6X8 cell for the rest of your days.

mur'phon
08-21-2009, 09:42 AM
Concidering that the evidence against him was far from overwhelming, I'd say he might deserve a retrial, but not a release. As for him being a threat, considering the fact that he was supported by (at least parts of) the libyan state during his last action, and that the big G is currently not terribly keen on having the west turn against him, what's the chance of him being able to carry out a new attack?

Litofsky
08-21-2009, 11:20 AM
Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways.

I don't believe anyone has previously mentioned that he was placed in isolation for the purpose of 'correcting himself.' This man was part of a plot that resulted in the deaths of two hundred seventy people. He's not going to isolation so that he can 'correct himself.' I do believe that isolation has far more sinister purpose.


"An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.

Again, I think that, in this case, it's precisely the thing that needs ti be done.

Caius Fett
08-21-2009, 12:07 PM
An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.

If it had truly been an eye for an eye this scumbag would have been dead. Kinda hard to have vengeful tendencies then isn't it.

Samuel Dravis
08-21-2009, 02:24 PM
I think it's fine that they released him, but only as long as he's kept under police watch. Letting someone convicted of bombings wander around free is just not a good idea, even if the evidence used to convict him doesn't seem so reliable now. It seems that the US is talking with Libya about doing this, so it's probably covered already.

It's natural to want him to suffer, especially the families of the victims. Compassion is extremely hard to show in a case like this. But because of that, his release exemplifies the vast gulf between a terrorist's morality and our own. If mercy can be shown even here, it is an example to the entire world - and to ourselves - that we are not like them, not even the slightest bit. And I am glad of it.

jrrtoken
08-21-2009, 04:46 PM
What exactly are you proposing as a just punishment for someone convicted of killing almost 300 people?Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly. As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways. How is "fixing" someone particularly relevant if they are locked away for the rest of their life?Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible.Sort of hard to enact your vengeful tendencies when you're locked in a 6X8 cell for the rest of your days.That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.

Jae Onasi
08-21-2009, 06:20 PM
Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies.
So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him.

Let me ask you this--if there's intel showing he's talked with his buddies about a particular flight, and you have a ticket to for that flight, are you going to get on board?

jrrtoken
08-21-2009, 07:34 PM
So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him.Only if he's on house arrest or other government surveillance, then I can't really see what's the matter with letting a convicted terrorist with terminal cancer to spend the rest of his days somewhere preferable. It's much akin to the tradition of a "last meal" before an execution, which is pretty much the same thing that he will be going through with prostate cancer.Let me ask you this--if there's intel showing he's talked with his buddies about a particular flight, and you have a ticket to for that flight, are you going to get on board?I'd prefer to leave hypothetical guiltbait out of the debate, Jae.

Totenkopf
08-21-2009, 09:47 PM
Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly. As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways.

Well, unless a guy is in solitary confinement for his whole time in prison, it's not exactly solitary. It is confinement. If a criminal isn't even remotely repentant for his/her behavior it would verge on madness and irresponsibility to release such a (probably sociopathic) person back into the public. Actually, I'd say there's no reason for them NOT to live in what you call solitude if they are unrepentant/unproductive in their ways.


Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible.That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.

Seems to me that life in prison is not even remotely a harsh sentence for the crime of which he was convicted (his actaul guilt being another matter).

JediAthos
08-22-2009, 01:00 AM
I think it's fine that they released him, but only as long as he's kept under police watch. Letting someone convicted of bombings wander around free is just not a good idea, even if the evidence used to convict him doesn't seem so reliable now. It seems that the US is talking with Libya about doing this, so it's probably covered already.


I would imagine that every intelligence agency in the western world will be watching him in some way shape or form.

Darth333
08-22-2009, 01:15 AM
[...]Thanks for putting our safety at risk.Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-22-2009, 01:26 AM
Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.

he will make bombs from his chemo drugs bloo bloo bloo

Totenkopf
08-22-2009, 01:38 AM
Well, I think it does send a poor message. Help plan and execute an operation that kills a lot of people and you too probably won't have to serve out a life sentence if caught (at least if you're imprisoned in Scotland :xp:). I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? They're going to die soon anyway. I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like.

Darth333
08-22-2009, 02:06 AM
Well, I think it does send a poor message. Help plan and execute an operation that kills a lot of people and you too probably won't have to serve out a life sentence if caught (at least if you're imprisoned in Scotland :xp:). I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? They're going to die soon anyway. I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like.
I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? That is irrelevant. My only question was about the "risk to our safety" in a particular case. I never said there shouldn't be any condemnation.

Does it? Death sentence doesn't discourage people from committing crimes I've seen countless studies about it that tend to show that states/countries that have death penalty are far from getting lower crime rates than others ( I will gladly post some links on Sunday if needed but not at 1 am on a Friday evening...or Saturday morning...)

I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like. I so wish I could discuss this and post my opinion openly but I can't...let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it and, with all due respect (you certainly know I like to discuss politics with you :) ) , whether or not we agree with the release, don't see how in the hell (or heaven) it will affect "our safety" in any way.

Jae Onasi
08-22-2009, 03:01 AM
Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.
Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one? He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.

@PastramiX--I'll take your non-answer as a 'no', you wouldn't get on the plane. ;P

Darth Avlectus
08-22-2009, 04:18 AM
While evidence for his indictment may seem a bit questionable, does nobody think he, himself, might have had something to do with putting the cloud of doubt upon the evidence? Consider it.

Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly.

There are cases where there is no other alternative. I see you insist this isn't one of them, though below you do acknowledge such a case.

As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? Because this may be the very slipping point some of them need for *just one more* strike. That is how criminal minds operate. They're not above taking advantage of the gullible.

While there is no shame in trying to understand people, at some point you have to stop intellectualizing because there are people who will never change. Especially if nothing more can be done to understand. It's a refinement that would probably do a great job of separating the truly good from the truly bad. But for the few you do purge from the pile-up, how many more are nothing but a hopeless pursuit?

Also, such a thing is not only dangerous but also expensive. If you throw money at it, what defines it as cost effective, marginally rehabilitated individuals? How many of those (which itself is still a shaky prospect) do you get compared to, hopeless wild goose chases?

As generalized as propositions are when proposed: if it is not cost effective, do you really think the public is going to take kindly to it?

Someone who is/has been a threat to multiple people...going light on them is hardly smart or wise.

There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways.

I disagree, especially where rehabilitation has been tried and it failed. Not to say it _never_ works, but as I pointed out above, it may not be coste effective, amongst several other issues to be considered.

Productive and Repentant are two concepts it sounds like you've mish-mashed together.

Productivity wise: I agree with you that people in 'the system' need to be made to be more productive. However, that'll never make someone change their ways. It would be a way of making the guilty earn their keep.

Repentance is, obviously, changed of their ways. At risk of sounding judgmental: While it is the objective of correctional disciplinsation, it is often not reachable.

Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. As do I. Still, this can only be so effective.

Curious. Have you ever taken any criminal justice classes? Have you ever worked for/with a company that contracts with the government to attempt to rehabilitate individuals deemed most eligible for rehab/probation? You do sound genuine in your concerns.

After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible. The prison and jail systems around the world are not perfect. Sometimes I even believe our suspicions are spot on that the system is just doing whatever it can in order to make as much money for itself as possible. Having said that, I'd prefer that all potential dangers to society be locked safely away from where they could harm innocents.

That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.

Granted.

At what point would this no longer be effective, though?

So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.

If you don't personally agree with the decision, it may be subjective, or it may be that other smarts aside from the book variety are kicking in. Street smarts. So far as the danger, well, if he was connected to something that culminated in the deaths of so many, then I would think that alone raises several questions about his ability to plan guerrilla warfare tactics. On top, if he is potentially involved with killing people, does that not raise questions about his ethical and moral standpoint?

If the two questions together do not raise enough concern about the threat he poses to the safety of citizens, then would you mind telling me what does constitute such concern?

Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one? He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.

Hadn't even gotten to that--conspiring to grow a militia for malicious intents. Another consideration.

adamqd
08-22-2009, 05:59 AM
At the end of the day, I dont believe in all this rehabilitation, for a thief or drug user yes, Murderer... sorry, your in side a cell because the country who prosecuted you doesn't believe in the death penalty, there is no coming back, no compassion IMO, You deserve nothing.

jrrtoken
08-22-2009, 08:47 AM
Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one?Nothing; whether or not he will actually physically prepare and execute an attack, either personally or through other contacts, is a completely different question. As far as I know, he's under certain degree of surveillance by the Libyan gov't, and if that doesn't provide solace, then he's probably being stalked by every asset that the CIA has at their disposal.He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.Okay, but IMO, most of the families are incapable of showing a scrap of compassion, mercy, etc. towards the man, which is understandable, but is also simply a concentration of vengeance clouding all sort of reason. Ergo, they shouldn't even be taken seriously as a font of judgment in this argument.@PastramiX--I'll take your non-answer as a 'no', you wouldn't get on the plane. ;PSorry; I don't answer questions designed to elicit a negative response from either answer; that's character assassination. Perhaps if I was presented an argument not based on borderline ad hominem, then perhaps I would provide an actual answer. Until then, I'm saving you the delight of answering your trap. ;)

Totenkopf
08-22-2009, 10:28 AM
That is irrelevant. My only question was about the "risk to our safety" in a particular case. I never said there shouldn't be any condemnation.

Problem is that it's an open question as to what threat he personally may be now that he's free. If you mean to imply that you think setting him free is a case of poor judgement (hence condemnable), but you believe him too far gone to be a direct threat, that is speculative (as is the contention that he'll probably blow up another plane). My point is that "mercy" in this case was clearly misplaced. He could have been treated for cancer while imprisoned. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that such "mercy" only reinforces the idea of a the "west" as weak and corrupt in the eyes of the radical islamist. Such people are only egged on by such gestures.


Does it? Death sentence doesn't discourage people from committing crimes I've seen countless studies about it that tend to show that states/countries that have death penalty are far from getting lower crime rates than others ( I will gladly post some links on Sunday if needed but not at 1 am on a Friday evening...or Saturday morning...)

Actually, you may have jumped the gun here as you seem to infer I'm saying he should've gotten the death penalty (not that it would have bothered me, either) and that would have dissuaded others from following in his footsteps. The only recidivism we know for sure that the death penalty prevents is by the perp himself or herself. I don't believe the point of execution is primarily to serve as a deterrent to others as much as a guarantee that the perp in question will never become a recidivist. As to the links, if you wish to post them, I'll take a look.


I so wish I could discuss this and post my opinion openly but I can't...let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it and, with all due respect (you certainly know I like to discuss politics with you :) ) , whether or not we agree with the release, don't see how in the hell (or heaven) it will affect "our safety" in any way.

Not quite sure what you mean by "it" (let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it ), unless you mean safety in the general sense. Well, without a crystal ball/clairvoyance/inside info, it's difficult to make a rock solid open-shut case about anything, really.;)

Astor
08-25-2009, 08:28 AM
Well, the silence from our glorious leader on this matter is deafening.

The Scottish Parliament was recalled for an emergency session yesterday to discuss the matter, amid continued criticism from within the UK and across the Atlantic. There are rumours and accusations that Megrahi's release is due to a trade agreement between the UK and Libyan governments.

So, where's Gordon been? On holiday, leaving Lord Mandelson (or, the cat that got the cream) to speak on the matter, which is ironic considering he's linked to the accusations of an agreement with Libya.

I find it ridiculous that the Prime Minister can take time out of his schedule to congratulate British sports teams on their victories, or speak about the death of a celebrity, or enquire about the health of Susan Boyle when he wants to, but can't be found when there's a genuine crisis occuring.

He's meeting the Israeli Prime Minister today - and he can't avoid answering some very hard questions about the release of Megrahi.

It's just a shame it's almost six days too late.

SW01
08-25-2009, 09:24 AM
The whole thing has been absurd - I was expecting a meeting of the Parliaments, or for the Minister to be dragged before a Committee within a day or two, yet only now after nearly a week does the government start to stir...

The rumour about an exchange for trade, well it was my first thought too, especially since a while back (years, maybe?) we were being convinced that the Libyan government was our new best friend - I seem to remember a Libyan representative of some kind being brought to the site of the bombing.

I wonder, what would the backlash be if such a thing ever emerged? I would expect the current Scottish government party to get hammered - I don't know if it's possible for Labour to be in any worse position, but I'm sure their total lack of input/intervention will count against them.

Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'

Totenkopf
08-27-2009, 05:27 AM
Hmmm...interesting:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Medical-advice--on-Libyan.5587119.jp

SW01
08-27-2009, 09:38 AM
Suggestions that he was not as ill as was thought, apparent lack of symptoms for such an advanced stage, no consensus or specialists willing to say, notions that the doctor who did give the prognosis was in the employ of Libya...

Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems. If they cannot prove their own assertions - well, at least we know the current British Government isn't likely to do anything, after Brown's speech.

"I really don't think we should be speculating on the day somebody is going to die."

When that's the reason for a mass murderer being released, yeah we really should.

Astor
08-27-2009, 09:47 AM
It's disgraceful at best.

Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems.

I have to agree, and it only reinforces my view that such a decision should not have been made solely by one Scottish minister, no matter how much he 'weighed the consequences'. The decision should have been made by the UK government, with close co-operation with the US government.

This affair has already damaged Scotland and the UK's image abroad (seeing as there are some misguided individuals out there who can't make the distinction between the two), and it may well do untold damage to both governments at the next election.

El Sitherino
08-27-2009, 10:34 AM
Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.

Technically it'd be far easier to organize while behind bars.
As for his release, it's extremely disrespectful for those closely tied to the event that placed him in prison. There are numerous convicts I can think of that would be better suited for pity release.

Darth Avlectus
08-27-2009, 04:17 PM
The whole thing has been absurd - I was expecting a meeting of the Parliaments, or for the Minister to be dragged before a Committee within a day or two, yet only now after nearly a week does the government start to stir...

Uh-oh... Welcome to how it's all done (stalling and dragging it out as long as possible for media and whatnot) in America's less scrupulous corners.

The rumour about an exchange for trade, well it was my first thought too, especially since a while back (years, maybe?) we were being convinced that the Libyan government was our new best friend - I seem to remember a Libyan representative of some kind being brought to the site of the bombing.

...NEW BEST FRIEND?! WTF? That's just...screwed up, man... RPG launching, machine gun toting, aggressive Lybians? Oh lord. I'm becoming cynical about your country already, just hearing that.

Justice, my friend, is about to take on a whole new meaning for your nation if it hasn't already.

I wonder, what would the backlash be if such a thing ever emerged? I would expect the current Scottish government party to get hammered - I don't know if it's possible for Labour to be in any worse position, but I'm sure their total lack of input/intervention will count against them.

It could and will get worse: I'd be wary of anyone talking about changing the constitution in your country or somehow relegating/curtailing/ or in some way controlling free speech and setting limits to your level of civil protest.
Be it through some kind of broad censorship/doctrine and/or some kinds of rules that would allow for arbitrarily deciding whether or not you are 'diverse' enough when that itself may be a red herring to the points you're trying to get across.

Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'

You'd be surprised of how many people would actually argue the case of innocence for people like Hitler, Stalin, or even Mao Tse Tung who murdered more than the both of them combined. Funny how American textbooks are conveniently omitting that fact. :¨:

Suggestions that he was not as ill as was thought, apparent lack of symptoms for such an advanced stage, no consensus or specialists willing to say, notions that the doctor who did give the prognosis was in the employ of Libya...

And there has been no significant dialog about it yet, has there? Neither about the doctor, nor the 'patient' has been discussed in any great detail, has it?

...seen it happen before...

Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems. If they cannot prove their own assertions - well, at least we know the current British Government isn't likely to do anything, after Brown's speech.

When that's the reason for a mass murderer being released, yeah we really should.

I agree.

Samuel Dravis
08-27-2009, 07:40 PM
Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'What about them? In the end, it is clearly the Justice Secretary's decision to allow mercy releases like this one or not. It's not a case of "You meet these criteria, you get out." One prisoner's release does not guarantee another prisoner's release, even if they have exactly the same circumstances. Instead, whether one is released or not relies entirely on the will of the secretary.

As for it making precedent, well, conforming to precedent with the mercy power would make absolute nonsense of the power in the first place. The purpose being, of course, to grant mercy when it is desirable, regardless of the circumstances of the prisoner. Not to mention it would limit the power of the office, and no official would ever want that...

Astor
09-01-2009, 03:54 PM
Government Releases Lockerbie Documents. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8230722.stm)

Both the Scottish and UK government have released letters and documents relating to the release of Megrahi.

One such letter suggests that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary did not want Megrahi to die in prison.

The Prime Minister has still refused to publish his feelings on the matter, simply saying that it was a matter for the Scottish Government. But it now seems that, behind closed doors, the Prime Minister was in favour of releasing Megrahi.

And of course, this comes a few days after it emerged that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, made clear that it was in the UK's 'best interests' that Megrahi was not excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

Opposition Leader, David Cameron has called for an inquiry into the release and the alleged deals behind it.

One thing is certain - the Government (and the Prime Minister) can't ignore this for much longer.

Jae Onasi
09-01-2009, 04:03 PM
And of course, this comes a few days after it emerged that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, made clear that it was in the UK's 'best interests' that Megrahi was not excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

The UK's 'best interests' also happen to involve a sweet oil deal.

What a surprise. I think I'll have a heart attack and die from that surprise. [/Iago the Parrot sarcasm]

Totenkopf
09-01-2009, 04:57 PM
The UK's 'best interests' also happen to involve a sweet oil deal.

Does that mean it was a "Megrahi for oil scandal" :xp:

El Sitherino
09-01-2009, 07:52 PM
What I don't understand is how in any way this will prove to benefit anyone in this supposed war on terrorists. Terrorists are made every day through starvation and mistreatment, hell this will probably provoke some Scots to do a little devilish business.

ForeverNight
09-02-2009, 05:32 PM
It doesn't really benefit anybody but the terrorists. It benefits them as they now have: A) A free hero who got away from the West. B) A resource on how to conduct plane bombings. C) A clear indication that the West is weak.

Point B isn't truly valid since the security measures -at least I would have to think- have more than doubled since then, but it's still a concern.

Darth Avlectus
09-02-2009, 09:56 PM
What I don't understand is how in any way this will prove to benefit anyone in this supposed war on terrorists. Terrorists are made every day through starvation and mistreatment, hell this will probably provoke some Scots to do a little devilish business.

It doesn't really benefit anybody but the terrorists. It benefits them as they now have: A) A free hero who got away from the West. B) A resource on how to conduct plane bombings. C) A clear indication that the West is weak.

Point B isn't truly valid since the security measures -at least I would have to think- have more than doubled since then, but it's still a concern.

Vicious circle.

It is an unfortunate turn of events to be sure. I guess the best we can do is be vigilant and on guard.

Samuel Dravis
09-02-2009, 10:35 PM
Even if the crazies think that the "West is weak" because we happen to have some idea of mercy, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be merciful. It just means the crazies are sociopaths.

Basing our moral decisions for real people in situations that we have control over on the fear of what a tiny, relatively anonymous sociopathic minority might do is insane. In fact, I'd suggest that allowing them to manipulate you into such a position is a far better indication that the "West is [morally] weak" than freeing any prisoner.

mimartin
09-03-2009, 02:20 AM
C) A clear indication that the West is weak.


How is it a indication that the West is weak? That isn't clear to me?

I always thought mercy was compassion shown to someone you have some power over. So in my opinion mercy is a sign of strength not weakness.

Totenkopf
09-03-2009, 10:36 AM
The reasons for such "mercy" being shown are most likely the determining factors in deciding decadence and weakness. It's looking like oil was probably the reason. I'd say that feeling you can show "mercy" indicates that you feel comfortable enough about how strong you perceive yourself, but not necessarily how strong you are or how others view you. Frankly, even with his diagnosis of terminal cancer, his "alleged" crime earned him a stiff sentence and it should have been seen through even if the perp died in prison. He could easily have been shown "mercy" in the hospital ward of a prison system.

Jae Onasi
09-03-2009, 10:43 AM
Everyone is ignoring the effect this has on the families of those that this man is convicted of killing in addition to those who might suffer if his information on bombing planes is used by future terrorists. The victims have received less consideration than the murderer, for oil no less, and that's not right.

Darth Avlectus
09-03-2009, 05:06 PM
True enough. I'm sure the victims' families are none too pleased, if not livid.

While mercy is a divine trait, it could be foolish. Especially in the face of these kind of events involving unscrupulous opportunists.

"People change, they settle down and mature out."

Well yeah, sure. That doesn't mean, however, that these people necessarily have changed their views nor their resentment of that which they once overtly attacked.

This kind of release is not only an insult to the victims' families (as Jae pointed out above), but it also flies in the face of common sense approaches to keep the masses safe from this sort of thing.

Not sure exactly what more there is to understand about these people if they refuse to change their mind in this fundamental aspect and set in their ways...Just saying...

mimartin
09-03-2009, 06:19 PM
I’m not overlooking the victims and if I was the one making the decision Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Not out of fear of him teaching others or helping plan an attack, but for no other reasons than the victims’ families and friends.

All I was stating that mercy can only be given from a state of power, so it does not clearly show a weakness.

I also wholeheartedly disagree that we must change to combat unscrupulous opportunists. If we give up on the principles that make us who we are, then we may as well join the terrorist, because they have already won. If it is within our society norm to be merciful, then we should be merciful and who cares what the terrorist think about it.

I’m not really worried about Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and it is not because he is terminally ill. It is because Libya now has too much to lose from an attack against the west. Still, he should have not been released. It was very disrespectful to the victims and their families and friends.

Darth Avlectus
09-03-2009, 08:16 PM
Iím not overlooking the victims and if I was the one making the decision Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Not out of fear of him teaching others or helping plan an attack, but for no other reasons than the victimsí families and friends.

Understood.

All I was stating that mercy can only be given from a state of power, so it does not clearly show a weakness. Agreed. Still there are times it is foolish enough to outweigh the good done from such virtuous acts. But, I don't need to tell you that.

I also wholeheartedly disagree that we must change to combat unscrupulous opportunists. We're not changing anything by exercising discretionary caution on a case by case level. Strategic.

Don't know where you got/I implied we had to change ourselves to combat them.

If we give up on the principles that make us who we are, then we may as well join the terrorist, because they have already won.

I'll agree there, though possibly for different reasons.

If it is within our society norm to be merciful, then we should be merciful and who cares what the terrorist think about it.

Easier said when they are relatively harmless.

The criminal mind looks for any give in the resolve of society and its inhabitants. If give is shown to these kind of people, they take it as a sign of weakness and will never stop pushing it, nobility and virtue does not matter to them. This is not in every case, mind you, but is common to the criminal mindset especially considered to not be capable of changing and rehabilitating. Most of those are ones targeting society.

Iím not really worried about Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and it is not because he is terminally ill. It is because Libya now has too much to lose from an attack against the west. Still, he should have not been released. It was very disrespectful to the victims and their families and friends.

Very well. You do seem to have thought it through, so I cannot fault you there. ;) Ours is merely a difference of opinion regarding discretions, then.

El Sitherino
09-04-2009, 12:31 AM
Technically however this wasn't done as an act of mercy, it's become more apparent that the release was politically based. When it's done as a backdoor deal, it's not mercy. So all of that talk is now gobbledeeguck.

I can't say for certain what my decision to do otherwise might have been at this time since I don't think anyone knows the full details, but these deals are usually under questionable logic and smell like a school lunch trade scam, like trading your chocolate cake for the mystery bagged lunch.

Darth Avlectus
09-04-2009, 01:01 AM
The reasons for such "mercy" being shown are most likely the determining factors in deciding decadence and weakness.

Other than phillisophical idealism, not really sure where the mercy part came in here. It'd be hyperbole to say it was in the spirit of genuine character in capitalism. Let's face it, we know there are apologists who would even go so far as to toss it that way too.

It's looking like oil was probably the reason. I'd say that feeling you can show "mercy" indicates that you feel comfortable enough about how strong you perceive yourself, but not necessarily how strong you are or how others view you. Frankly, even with his diagnosis of terminal cancer, his "alleged" crime earned him a stiff sentence and it should have been seen through even if the perp died in prison. He could easily have been shown "mercy" in the hospital ward of a prison system.

From a realist perspective we find it suspicious there's been no significant dialog on the doctor as an individual, nor the case itself; let alone the correlative matters of the two regarding the criminal. So I guess none of us should be surprised that politics and monetary/economical gain were motive here. It's really the only answer any of us can conjure--not that it's a secret.

Totenkopf
09-04-2009, 01:59 PM
Frankly, an oil deal is the only thing that really makes sense about this guy's early release. "Humanitarian" justifications alone would really not be sufficient given the circumstances surrounding his crime.

Q
09-04-2009, 07:50 PM
Yeah, I had a feeling that this was politically motivated. :roleyess:

Darth InSidious
09-04-2009, 08:44 PM
I'm loving the paranoid overreaction from some of you Yanks - the doomsaying from some of you sounds absurd about a man who was moved to a hospital in the last few days in a country that has officially rejected terrorism.

There's also the small matter that the evidence against Megrahi is, to say the least, somewhat flimsy, and that he was not tried by a jury, and that, among others, Dr. Jim Swire, among others, holds that Megrahi is innocent.

I'm also enjoying the grossly hypocritical flinging of accusations at us over a potential oil deal - because the United States, the bastion of moral rectitude, would never do anything for such base reasons as oil... would it?

Tell me honestly, what upsets you more - that Megrahi went free or that we dared to challenge America's claim to sovereignty over the UK?

Q
09-04-2009, 08:52 PM
Flip a coin. :D

Seriously, though, if the US invaded Iraq for oil as the by now overly clichéd accusation states, I'd just like to know one thing:

WHERE THE **** IS OUR CHEAP GAS?! I sure as hell haven't seen any. Instead, we got burned by a huge, possibly politically motivated price-hike.

Totenkopf
09-04-2009, 11:44 PM
Lord Palmerston said:
“Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

I'd say the above quote is a pretty fair observation about political reality. I may disagree with the decision to release him, but recognize that they had the right to do so according to their laws. Should be interesting to see what, if any, repercussions fall out from this.

Darth Avlectus
09-05-2009, 01:03 AM
^^^This.

El Sitherino
09-06-2009, 02:50 AM
WHERE THE **** IS OUR CHEAP GAS?! I sure as hell haven't seen any. Instead, we got burned by a huge, possibly politically motivated price-hike.

I don't mean to sound rude when I say this, but you aren't terribly versed in how the oil companies work are you? You do realize the oil companies artifically hike the gas prices, we have enough in our hold at this time for gas prices to be under a dollar, but that doesn't get them their profit. As well we have punched land that isn't even being tapped and they still want more places to tap like Alaska.

The reason we don't see anything from our oil companies is because of private interest. They know that they have control over the system and there isn't a damn thing we can do to say about it. Why do you think Halliburton was the first company in Iraq? They have private security that they hired, Blackwater, a private mercenary army.

Was Iraq solely about oil? No. But we sure as hell have plenty of oil, they just don't want us to believe that. If we did then no one would be shouting "Drill here. Drill Now" and "Drill baby, drill". We have enough oil for well over 100 years, but if people don't know it then we can sell it like it's a rarity. Infact right now they're selling it to countries like China and it's even believed that they're currently selling to North Korea.

It's all about money

Totenkopf
09-06-2009, 01:56 PM
I don't mean to sound rude when I say this, but you aren't terribly versed in how the oil companies work are you? You do realize the oil companies artifically hike the gas prices, we have enough in our hold at this time for gas prices to be under a dollar, but that doesn't get them their profit. As well we have punched land that isn't even being tapped and they still want more places to tap like Alaska.

Are you referring to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that politicians occasionally threaten to dip into to try to lower oil prices?


The reason we don't see anything from our oil companies is because of private interest. They know that they have control over the system and there isn't a damn thing we can do to say about it. Why do you think Halliburton was the first company in Iraq? They have private security that they hired, Blackwater, a private mercenary army.

Wouldn't have anything to do with them being as big and experienced as they are, would it. Besides, unless the greenies and oil barons are in bed together, seems like govt and pseudo-science are attempting to do something about it w/this current Congress and administration. Seems we're willing to facilitate oil exploration off Brazil but not of the coast of America.



Was Iraq solely about oil? No. But we sure as hell have plenty of oil, they just don't want us to believe that. If we did then no one would be shouting "Drill here. Drill Now" and "Drill baby, drill". We have enough oil for well over 100 years, but if people don't know it then we can sell it like it's a rarity. Infact right now they're selling it to countries like China and it's even believed that they're currently selling to North Korea.

So, peak oil is a "right wing private enterprise" conspiracy? Remember, it was under Clinton that we started talking about selling oil to NK as part of a carrot and....well mostly carrot operation to try to get them to scale back on their nuke program. Sadly, I don't think this really changed under Bush either in the end. We've been selling heavier AK crude to the Japanese for years.


It's all about money

Well, the expression $$ talks and BS walks comes to mind. Sad but true.

El Sitherino
09-06-2009, 02:30 PM
Are you referring to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that politicians occasionally threaten to dip into to try to lower oil prices?

I'm referring to the oil fields we've had ready to go since the 1960's even here in Texas.


Wouldn't have anything to do with them being as big and experienced as they are, would it.
All other business enterprises after invasions were never done in exclusivity contracts, Haliburton holds all oil rights.
Hell we gave the Japanese BOTH Burger King and McDonald's.

So, peak oil is a "right wing private enterprise" conspiracy?
I don't recall saying that, only saying that the oil companies couldn't get their lobbyists to convince people to get these things going. It'd be hard to convince people that it's absolute necessity for us to do this if they knew we had plenty of oil for ourselves as well as others already. It's all about maximizing their profit and minimalizing customer service, it's a common business practice that is used these days.


Well, the expression $$ talks and BS walks comes to mind. Sad but true.

Absolutely.

We are however getting off topic on this, I suppose if anyone wants to continue discussion we could have a moderator split this off from the thread or at least have these posts copied over to a new one.

Totenkopf
09-06-2009, 04:23 PM
I'm referring to the oil fields we've had ready to go since the 1960's even here in Texas.

Well, from what I recall, they could....even with higher US costs, still make a profit on domestic oil at current prices. Stumbling blocks are as much if not more so political these days.


All other business enterprises after invasions were never done in exclusivity contracts, Haliburton holds all oil rights.
Hell we gave the Japanese BOTH Burger King and McDonald's.

Micky Ds and BK are worlds apart from Haliburton, both in the nature of what's involved and the scope. Doesn't mean that Haliburton doesn't do unethical things (like many govt contractors), but the this is mostly apples and oranges. Unless you're contending that Haliburton started the 2nd Gulf War to secure those rights or increase the profitability of such holdings, not clear on what your point is here.


I don't recall saying that, only saying that the oil companies couldn't get their lobbyists to convince people to get these things going. It'd be hard to convince people that it's absolute necessity for us to do this if they knew we had plenty of oil for ourselves as well as others already. It's all about maximizing their profit and minimalizing customer service, it's a common business practice that is used these days.

Didn't say you made that statement. However, given your apparent hostility toward big corporations not clear on what you're driving at here either. You contend that we have enough oil for the US for at least another 100 years. Many oil experts often contend we are at/past peak oil and that there's not enough for maybe even the next 50-60 years at current consumption rates. Also, if "Big Oil" really wants to hide this excess oil....why would you contend, beyond a cynical *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* that these companies would even bother lobbying people in DC to produce more dometic oil in the first place? They could simply maximize their profits via their share of control of foreign oil sources and save $$ on unnecessary lobbying. Throw in the occasional global crisis and they're all good, so to speak.


Absolutely.

We are however getting off topic on this, I suppose if anyone wants to continue discussion we could have a moderator split this off from the thread or at least have these posts copied over to a new one.
Not a bad idea.

vanir
09-06-2009, 11:46 PM
(1) Some prosecuted jihadists may have reasonable grounds to argue POW status.
(2) My sentiments are that in the cases of extreme abuse related crimes (not necessarily including the case of targeting civilians which is a viable military target whether anyone likes it or not) it is for the families and victims directly involved to lead recourse.
(3) In the case of serious crime the judiciary is not subject to extremist or popular social sentiments. Their responsibility is to the evidentiary procedure and proportional sentencing. Agreed particularly in the cases of abuse related crimes the popular sentencing procedures of many democratic nations could use a little revision. But "the war on terrorism" should not be used as a proxy for this, or you might find yourself facing 25 years for making a joke in a pub about death and slaughter to someone insane enough to go out and commit it the next day.

Totenkopf
02-23-2010, 01:45 AM
Update:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/7279123/Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-living-in-luxury-villa-six-months-after-being-at-deaths-door.html

Astor
03-31-2011, 12:16 PM
*Epic Bump*

The recent defection of Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who has long been touted as the mastermind of the Lockerbie bombing has prompted Scottish Prosecutors to seek an interview with him. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12919077)

Who knows what this might reveal about the truth behind the bombing, and perhaps even reveal more about the circumstances of Al-Megrahi's release.

Liverandbacon
03-31-2011, 02:40 PM
And he's still alive. Turns out that "3 months" has been more like 19 so far. One could stretch and say 16, since he's supposedly been in a coma since December, but I'll believe that when I see it. 'Compassion' releases for violent crimes are idiocy. Cancer should not be considered a valid reason to excuse someone from paying the price society imposed on them for their actions. (It doesn't matter whether they're too old/sick/whatever to still be a direct danger)

Regarding Koussa, make no mistake: Koussa is just as bad as Gaddafi, but unlike Gaddafi, he is completely sane. He's simply decided that although the result of the conflict is still up in the air, he's not willing to risk whatever fate the rebels would intend for him, and would be better off with the lesser, though certain, sacrifice that is a western prison sentence. This defection had nothing to do with morals. He had a hand in a lot of unpleasant situations, and should be locked away for a proper, die-in-prison life sentence, somewhere where he'll never see daylight again. We don't want to discourage future defectors, but a line has to be drawn regarding what will simply be ignored after defection, and anything we can do to him is nothing compared to what could happen if he'd stayed in Libya. Of course, rebel victory is far from certain, and honestly, given the growing numbers of jihadis in the rebel ranks, I'm hoping for the rebels to just provide enough pressure for an in-government coup followed by major reforms. An outright rebel victory, with total dissolution of the existing government, would have some very serious consequences.