Scotland releases terrorist to die.

"Compassion" and "terrorist bomber" in the same paragraph = non sequitur

Forgiveness should come from the victims, imo. The law is beautiful, but do mass murderers deserve it? It may be a fact that he is going to die anyway, but in today's world, this act is out of place. I don't know the details, so anyway YMMV.

Matthew 5:43-48*(New International Version)

*43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

You rarely see it lived out. It doea apply to this case, however it does not mean that those who do bad things get off easier. It should however mean that a true Christian would not seek more revenge just because of what the man did. I am of 2 minds on this. I do not feel he is a threat but if he did do the crime he should serve the full punishment. Life in prison is supposed to be until you die, not until you get close to death and we let you out.

I did not vote. Too tough for me to answer at this time.

To be absolutely honest, I don't know. If Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi was involved in the plot, then no, they should have let him rot in jail until he dies.

However, was Megrahi guilty? Here in the US, where "all Arabs/Muslins are routinely painted by the corporate media as terrorists or potential terrorists, and similarly, all terrorists must be Arabs or Muslims" it is nice and conveniently easy to swallow the neatly parceled package of yet another guilty (Libyan) evil bomber who cares for neither life nor limb. It's easy. Blame someone, anyone, as long as they are different to us.

However, have a read of this article in the UK government-run mainstream BBC .. aka Auntie Beeb, as its known in the UK: A very unradical and rather conservative news organization (although probably perceived by Murdochites as "commie-pinko"...)

The paragraphs quoted below leave a very sour taste in the mouth (as do numerous other incidents of recent years involving the supposed bad deeds of those we have been taught to despise: (emphasis and skeptical exclamations mine)


to paraphrase... ""national security"".. the other "last refuge" of scoundrels and war criminals....


There are many other articles (in the mainstream media outside of the US) that suggest that the real perps of the Lockerbie bombing were are still at large, and the trial in Scotland left a lot to be desired. Yet again. Yet again. And again. More probable stinking lies, in the name of fingering those we have learned to unconditionally hate. The infantilized public only wants to accept one option in the black and white fantasy world baby-formula CRAP that is being spoon-fed to us.

Re-open the fucking trial, let the truth out, for once.

As long as the terrorist bomber uninstalled MS Office for Mac I would have no problems releasing him.

Tony Gauci was the SOLE witness that resulted in the conviction of Mr. Megrahi. He sounds like a stooge, coached by the usual suspects.

Looking up Tony Gauci: His wiki entry makes it even more doubtful that he was a bona fide, honest witness.

For example:
* At the trial, Tony Gauci appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold.

WTF, squared? Unreliable witness.... Case dismissed... or it damned well should have been... in a real court hearing that is....

Then:
* Five years after the trial, former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, publicly described Gauci as being "an apple short of a picnic" and "not quite the full shilling". ....

This guy definitely sounds like an unreliable witness, yet....

"Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in March 2002".

This sounds like a classic case of a defendant being railroaded, in a biased court.

And then this stooge of a witness, described as a "shopkeeper in Malta" emigrates to Australia. Nice. It's not cheap to suddenly "emigrate to Australia". Suddenly, he becomes unavailable for further questioning, and since Australia is aligned solidly with the US/UK "war on terrorism" scam, he's never going to have to reappear in court to answer this obvious miscarriage of justice. And.... the alleged bomber is about to die of cancer anyway.

Ain't it odd that the facts about this sole "witness" in this phony trial and plainly fraudulent conviction are not included in the stories circulating in the US weasel media bullshit delivery service. Or not. What more can one expect from those who protect the real terrorists?

I voted that it's a 'good' law, but shouldn't have been used in this instance.

I don't think that somebody guilty of mass murder should be released just because they're dying, especially when the murders were commited as an act of political (or religious) terrorism.

Compassion for the dying is all well and good, but if his political convictions have not changed what's to stop a terrorist using his last few days to continue his terrorist agenda?

I think he should have been released exactly where his bomb went off.

That's about as much compassion as I can dredge up for this guy.

And what good would this achieve?

If you want him dead I can understand. Him dead and do so while making a statement, I can understand. But why go to bizarre and dangerous lengths, that would likely do more harm than good for everybody concern, except the guilty?

The same good his act achieved in the first place. It obviously had some significance to him or he never would have committed that act. If he thinks it was a good thing to do, well, then he should appreciate it. Showing the same compassion as he showed should be more imaginative.

I'm an old testament kinda guy - an eye for an eye. People should be convinced their deeds come home to roost.

Not a chance that would be the result, IMO doing so would quite rightly have bought greater condemnation on the authorities than releasing him has. I'd rather have people complaining about my act of misplaced compassion, than about an act of barbaric, calculated revenge.


I guess this explains a lot. I dont see any good in bringing your own religious beliefs into any discussion on civilised justice. Religion has a place, but it should be a personal belief that you should use to guide your actions only. As a civilisation, action must be taken to ensure justice is dealt without reference to religious beliefs, and religious beliefs shouldnt be used to impact on others with differing beliefs.

You got your work cut out for you then - the majority (from a quick scan) of the world outside of China is guided by religious belief, and since "barbaric, calculated revenge" is out, we don't need to consider China in the argument, right?

I believe you're in the minority. Civilization, as it's known, disagrees with you. You got a great idea, but I don't see it getting traction any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Really?

If you don't mind disclosing; where are you living? I'm going to hazard a guess you're in the US. Could you point to any single law, passed in the past say, hundred years, that has been passed for the purpose of upholding a religious belief, and not including any that happens to fall inline with a religious belief while having been passed for reasons of equality and justice.

That much of the worlds justice systems follow closly to much of the worlds religious beliefs is not in itself because justice is being done in the name of religion, more that most religions aligned themselves to what civilisations aspire to: freedom, equality, fair treatment and justice. If a religion doesn't aspire to those principles it can't claim to be civilised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_herbs

Does anyone here really acknowledge the likelihood of this man's supposed guilt, looking at the way the "trial" was conducted, and the extreme paucity of the "evidence" against him? If so, upon what basis? Because he's Libyan, perhaps? Thats comfortable.


Ah.. tit for tat. Passing the buck. The next eye gets plucked out, in retaliation for the previous one, and so on.. until someone decides to stop the madness. An eye for an eye: the chief way by which strife, war, inhumanity, and all other bad stuff, continues. But it can be very profitable...

Classic stuff, sammi.

I don't know enough about the evidence or trial to start second guessing the outcome, however this does not make any difference to my view on the initial subject of this thread regarding the appropriateness of Scotland's release of the convicted terrorist on compassionate grounds.

In fact if the man is innocent, I would find use of this law even more inappropriate than I do now with him convicted as guilty.

Some people don't want to know, look at the lack of replies to your post.

So true.

Thanks. But the deliberate deaths of 250+ people, then rigging a trial, and convicting the wrong person really is no laughing matter.

This was likely case, of "get someone, get anyone, provided they comform with whichever groups have been popularly painted as enemies. The public wants a neat, easily packaged, nicely digestible conviction that makes those we are comfortable viewing as enemies even worse in the public perception.

Wakey wakey! You really love your great Arab terrorist conspiracy theories.

What? only one reply in 7mins. not enough?

A few more tidbits and opinions/impressions from experts:

According to British journalist Hugh Miles in a 2007 article for London Review of Books, many “lawyers, politicians, diplomats and relatives of Lockerbie victims now believe that the former Libyan intelligence officer is innocent.”

Miles quoted Robert Black QC, an Edinburgh University professor emeritus of Scottish law, as saying, “No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted him and it is an absolute disgrace and outrage what the Scottish court did.”

Al-Megrahi was tried along with fellow Libyan intelligence officer Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. With distraught relatives of victims filling the courtroom, the Scottish judges understandably feared the reaction to two not guilty verdicts. Instead, the judges acquitted Fhimah and found al-Megrahi guilty.

A U.N. observer to the trial, Austrian philosophy Professor Hans Koschler, noted, "You cannot come out with a verdict of guilty for one and innocent for the other when they were both being tried with the same evidence.”

Quoted from here

This affair stinks.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The "under God" part was added 2 years before I was born and it's there today.

"In God We Trust" - official motto of the US, adopted the year of my birth.

Now, before you move the goal posts again, these are the evidence in rebuttal to your assertion; "Religion has a place, but it should be a personal belief that you should use to guide your actions only. As a civilisation, action must be taken to ensure justice is dealt without reference to religious beliefs, and religious beliefs shouldn’t be used to impact on other’s with differing beliefs." Laws aside, the US is quite the religious nation, and it permeates activities on the national level daily. Congress opens each session with a prayer, for instance...

You're wanting to define civilization by standards you alone set.

Means, opportunity and motive -

Means: Libya was proven to have bought the boards used as a timer for the bomb

Opportunity: al-Megrahi (proven to be a high-ranking agent of Libyan intelligence) was proven to have entered the country with a forged passport a few days before and left a few hours after the suitcase with the bomb was delivered.

Motive: Libya wanted to respond to the attack the US made to address the German discotheque. Reagan bombed Libya's capital trying to get Kaddafi, but only got his daughter. Kaddafi lays a lip lock on al-Megrahi the moment he gets off the plane the other day.

The court was convinced of his guilt - as far as debating it on an Internet forum, I'll leave that to others, I'll just believe the judges 'till they retract their conviction.

I've defined civilisation as a society's aspiration to: freedom, equality, fair treatment and justice; how would you define it?

I don't know what you're talking about regarding goal posts??

You note the addition of '...under God...' to the pledge of allegiance 2years before you were born; after lobbying by the Knight of Columbus, a religious group that were still refusing the entry to membership of their group on racial and gender grounds at the time It's also interesting to note that the author of the original pledge wanted to include the word 'equality' in the pledge, but decided against it as he knew society wasn't ready to accept it at that time, and furthermore it is stated by his family that he would not have agreed to the addition of religion to his pledge. So your example here is not the passing of a law really, it's the bastardisation of a patriotic oath into a public prayer.

You also mention the motto of the US adopted around the same time: In God We Trust. I don’t really have a lot to say about this having never really put any thought toward it, but one thing that does spring to mind, and perhaps it’s because I’m British, and perhaps because this thread is about, in part, British law; the motto on the British coat of arms “Dieu et mon droit” or ‘ God and my right’. It strikes me that even 600+ years ago the British considered themselves and their rights as equally important to God, while only 60years ago the US decided to abdicate any responsibility to simply trust in God.

You’re right that religion does permeate through American life, but you will concede that is not in use as a method by which even the US legislates. In fact isn’t there a law expressly forbidding the display of religious iconography on court buildings in the US? I’m sure I heard that somewhere. This would seem to attest to the fact that the separation of religion from the judicial processes is accepted practice.

Why is that do you wonder?

The goal post (initially) was from your post-

"As a civilisation, action must be taken to ensure justice is dealt without reference to religious beliefs, and religious beliefs shouldn’t be used to impact on other’s with differing beliefs"

And you replied with the following quote from my post-

"the majority (from a quick scan) of the world outside of China is guided by religious belief..."

with a request:

"Could you point to any single law, passed in the past say, hundred years, that has been passed for the purpose of upholding a religious belief"

Now, the move from the assertion that "justice is dealt without reference to religious beliefs", which you then moved to "can you point to any single law"... That is moving the goal posts, redefining the target I need to hit to successfully meet your challenge. First it was just a reference (which I provided) then you wanted a law... which actually is satisfied too, by the fact that state laws require the Pledge to be offered...and the Supreme Court (Minersville School District v. Gobitis) ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge.

As far as any laws forbidding "religious iconography" on court buildings, nope, nadda. There is a separation of church and state issue that is brought up time and time again, but there isn't one comprehensive decision about it, the results are basically all over the map. There are several depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments in the US Supreme Court building itself, if that's any indication.

Ahh. "Opportunity" and"Motivation"! These are common factors that point towards the perpetrators of a crime. Shame that such useful "rookie cop" methods are so often applied when convenient, rather than in pursuit of justice.


That's meaningless. Libya is a country, not a person.

Libya? Debunked.

However, this article suggests that there was more in common with Palestinian militants.... but since no Palestinians have been charged/investigated etc. etc., there's probably very little mileage in that speculation.


A foreign agent with a false passport. I don't believe it!


There are questions regarding the guilty parties in the La Belle bombing as well. The bombing attack against Libya ("Operation El Dorado Canyon")was planned by the Reagan Administration well in advance of the la Belle bombing, for starters. The former East German Stasi colonel Frank Weigand spilled the beans in a ZDF documentary in 1998.

One of the men blamed for the La Belle bombing attack was Abu Jaber. Reporter John Goetz in the Spring 1996 edition of Covert Action Quarterly revealed that Abu Jaber was a CIA informer. Indeed, one KGB report documented a meeting between Abu Jaber and his CIA handler two days before the La Belle bombing. Abu Jaber apparently told his handler that the price of the bombing would be $30,000.

Also according to former Israeli intelligence colonel Victor Ostrovsky in his sworn testimony for the Lockerbie trial, Mossad commandos had set up a radio transmitter in Tripoli generating false telex signals about the "success" of the Berlin bomb. The intercepts had been concocted by Mossad, he said.


.

Yuk. Pictures? No, I take that back. Anyway, that seems like an odd reaction for the Libyan leader now that he's gone from "bad guy" to "good guy".


The court was in no way "convinced of their guilt". Furthermore, the courtroom was packed with friends and relatives of the deceased, and thus the jury was under great pressure to supply a "guilty" verdict. If you, or I, were a juror in that case, and you had to come up with a verdict in a case re. two people who had been pre-tried by the media, belonged to a universally condemned, pariah nation, and someone had to pay for Britain's worst ever terrorist attack, would you not feel you were under at least some pressure to comply with the popular demand for a guilty verdict? I have to admit that I would (I think most would) knowing that the probable reactions had a 'not guilty' verdict been delivered been distinctly not conducive to one's sense of self-preservation.

dbl post...

"Means, opportunity and Motive the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding.

Your characterization of them as a "rookie cop" method fails. It's a legal thing, not a "rookie cop" thing.
Your own source acknowledges Lybia was in possession of the timers. Your attempt to misdirect fails.
It doesn't surprise me - you seem to be singularly insistent on disbelieving the facts.
They found him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt, for deliberately placing the bomb on Flight 103 that blew up the plane and killed everyone on board".

Here's the Original Guilty Verdict, at findlaw

http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2...y-verdict.html

I think you need to vet your assertions before you commit to them.

This was done at the request of the Royal Family to increase trade with Libya. They put tremendous pressure on the courts to do this. All for money and nothing more.

Hands, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There was unanimous agreement by the panel of 3 judges, listed here directly from the verdict - "There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused [al Megrahi], and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the Indictment as amended."

So, do you have better evidence ... or perhaps you're a better judge of the issue than the 3 judges who convicted al Megrahi? I'm not sure why you made that entire post. The case is over, the guy is guilty. That fight is done.

Then you post about proposed policy statement changes...these haven't been approved by Congress, and given the attention this particular "compassionate release" issue has brought to the attention of Congress, I'd not be surprised to see the whole thing canned.

Other than an attempt to obfuscate the situation (which is the only thing I can guess you're trying to do), is there anything specific you're trying to accomplish?

The validity of the guilty verdict is totally dependent upon the integrity of the hearing. Was this a trial with a predetermined outcome? There were two principle defendants, both charged with the same crimes, on the same shaky "evidence" (some provided by the same loose-cannon witness who was described as "an apple short of a picnic", and who was allegedly paid handsomely to say what he did). One defendant, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was "acquitted", and the other, Al-Megrahi, was found "guilty". Unless there was some evidence that was privy to the 3 judges, what did Al-Megrahi do that distinguished his fate so drastically from that of his alleged accomplice? Furthermore, since they were both charged with the same offenses, logic dictates that both Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah and Al-Megrahi knew of each other's alleged involvement in the attack. Since they found Al Megrahi guilty, it makes little sense that they acquitted Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah when he was clearly accessory to the crime, both before and after the fact, if the allegations are true? Accessory before (and after) the fact in British (and US) law carries sentences on a par with that given to the actual perpetrators of a crime. They could easily have gotten two guilty verdicts... The judges have essentially stated that these two conspired to carry out a bombing, but they knew not of the other's involvement. Very good. Yikes.

This case still stinks, regardless of your weaseling your way around the facts. Just because the trial happened in a British court does not automatically mean that the case was immune to tampering and rigging. If Al-Megrahi, who still proclaims his innocence (kinda unusual for a terrorist bomber, who usually brag about such things) survives long enough, cancer permitting, he is within his rights to sue the ass off the UK authorities for wrongful arrest, detention and imprisonment.. and more.

A decidedly British article on this. Interesting read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-us-Scots.html

I wasn't moving the goalposts at all; You replied to my first statement regarding religious beliefs being personal and not a method of administering justice, by saying that the vast majority of the world disagrees. I asked for an example, and you provided the amendment to the US's pledge of allegiance to include an overtly religious reference.
Are you saying that the US is legislated over by religion? and if not by religion then by what test or measure are laws held in the administration of justice?

I should also say that I dont think the US is a bad example of a legal system, and Im only discussing it as its your home, and I doubt youd know about my homes legal system enough to discuss; my original comments were made about civilisation as a whole, and as an aspiration, not any particular country/religion/political system.

And the evidence for one guy convinced a 3 judge panel that, without a doubt, he was guilty and the evidence for the other didn't convince them.

Have you read the original verdict? It's spelled out there fairly well. They go over all this.

Pretty much, yeah. Historic religious influences were combined with ancient Babylonian laws to form the basis of the laws we now have...take the Laws of Moses and combine that with the Codex Hammurabi and you pretty much have western law, all the way down to the finer details like murder is wrong (law of moses) and you're innocent 'till proven guilty (hammurabi). Hammurabi by itself was kinda cruel - if you built something that killed another, you would be put to death, but the religious influences of forgiveness and the value of life mitigated that cruelty considerably.

Peoples actions were ruled by Kings, but their Gods ruled their beliefs. Kings had to account for the fact that the word of God cannot be amended or legislated against by judges or governments. This isn't my opinion (I'm not a religious person), it's a fact that these conditions existed and shaped what we now have as our societies. Specifically, that sentence is a pretty common quote, google "the word of God cannot be amended or legislated against by judges or governments" for more details.

Laws formed from the influences that shaped society, and religion has a very considerable affect on society. I guess you can refuse to believe that, but if you look at history from the very first recorded law about 4000 years ago, you can see how what we have now isn't all that different from what they had then, once you combine the secular with the religious legal constructs. Read Hammurabi and the Laws of Moses if you want proof.

If you just want the Cliff Notes version, read the wiki entry on "Law" and specifically the section on the History of Law.

So you're saying that, while you're an old testament kinda guy, but not religious, you only consider murder wrong because God(the Christian/Jewish one) said so?

You say people's beliefs, on subjects like murder etc, were formed by religion, but what shaped religion? Being non-religious you can't really say god, so what?

I'd answer people; people's opinions shaped their actions, how they lived and how their society was administered. Religion came later as a way to manage people; it was needed at the time, because society was less sophisticated.

You say that America is legislated over by religion, which I find kinda sad, and kinda worrying; because most of the time when I hear religious arguments for legislation, what I actually hear is somebody clinging to religion to defend their hatered or fear of a particular group or thing.

You suggest that there is proof of what you say in reading the Bible, or by going back 4000years, I suggest you look at cultures much older; cultures that must have lived to a set of social rules and ask yourself how they came to these rules before God told them??

mpw, I'll continue this discussion when you discontinue the making of strawmen. If you want to know what I think, ask. Making shit up is stupid. Stop.