Libyan Bomber To Go Home

Angus444

Opinions folks?

Personally, I am against the decision.......

Harry B

I'm for it. There's nothing wrong with showing a bit of humanity.

stevenmh

Due process was followed and he has been released in accordance with Scottish law.

I think it is a brave move by Scotland and one that should be accepted, and respected, as it shows that laws are applicable to everyone and people are not just thrown in a Guantanamo situation.

I am for. Well done Scotland.

He will be dead soon.

camerone

the person who slaughtered 270 people doesnt deserve humanity. he should die alone in jail. the people on the plane never got to hug their families goodbye.

finchy

There is a campaign group led by families of the victims (representing some, but not all) who feel that justice has not been done, and that the convicted man is innocent:

http://www.lockerbie-disaster.org.uk/

I presume that they all know a lot more about the case than we do, and have much greater emotional involvement, so maybe the conviction was a miscarriage of justice?

chriskempton

I gather there's some questions about the conviction, but if someone is deemed guilty of killing 270 people, I just don't get the concept of freeing them on compassionate grounds. I guess some people bear grudges and some people move on. I'll count myself in the former, not that I'm proud of it.

Fogliettaz

Peter Mandleson (the Prince of Darkness) has just been in Corfu with Col Gadaffi's son, need I say more!

Fogliettaz

Peter Mandleson (the Prince of Darkness) has just been in Corfu with Col Gadaffi's son, need I say more!

Anonymous

I think he should have stayed in jail in Scotland. Whether he is guilty or not seems to be in dispute but he dropped his appeal due to the fact that he has an advanced terminal disease and took the chance of release on compasionate grounds on Lawyers advice. A bit convenient, that.

What I don't think has helped keep him out of prison is Hilary Clinton pressurising and sticking her nose in Judicial matters that are none of her concern. When someone is telling you what to do, human reaction a lot of the time is to tend to do the opposite. Not saying the scottish minister has had a knee-jerk reaction, just maybe swayed a decision that was pretty made anyway.

Once certain crimes have been committed and on individual case/crime severity, human rights for the convicted need no longer apply.

nicensleazy

Its a very sad thing......I'm sure the victims relatives, parents etc don't share the same opinion. Its probably more to do with trade etc The relatives of the train drive of Ronald Biggs don't think he should be released. Justice....yeah right. This country has gone down the pan and is floating out to sea.

dennisn

I'm of the opinion that letting him go back to Libya is a good thing. The taxpayers won't have to pay for his medical expenses and maybe he'll die in squalor and misery on a dusty street like he deserves.

Special K

stevenmh wrote:

Due process was followed and he has been released in accordance with Scottish law.

I think it is a brave move by Scotland and one that should be accepted, and respected, as it shows that laws are applicable to everyone and people are not just thrown in a Guantanamo situation.

I am for. Well done Scotland.

He will be dead soon.

Maybe.

Or, it shows just how silly devolution really is. Lockerbie was an event of global significance, so bear with us if we don't immediately get used to the idea of a relative unknown chap ruling on the fate of such a significant convicted criminal.

Am thinking of some equivalent, maybe a convicted helper of the 7/7 bombings being released from a jail in the US by the sheriff from the fictional Dukes of Hazard.

stevenmh

Or, it shows just how silly devolution really is. Lockerbie was an event of global significance, so bear with us if we don't immediately get used to the idea of a relative unknown chap ruling on the fate of such a significant convicted criminal.
Am thinking of some equivalent, maybe a convicted helper of the 7/7 bombings being released from a jail in the US by the sheriff from the fictional Dukes of Hazard.

^?!! So, what you wanted Brown to have the press conference and decide what is basically Scottish law, instead of the elected official in charge. Or maybe let the Americans decide for them both?

The law is the law, and I think it shows strengh and maturity to release him to die in Libya.

I do think Scotland has done the right thing.

When we as a society start to ignore the law, or say it does not apply in this case or that, then what do we become? Who is wrong and who is right? Just look at the Geneva Convention, Guantanamo and the myriad of massive topics that go along with just those two issues.

daviesee

I don't know who, how, or why but someone has sold out.

Most people think that the "bad guys" in the film Braveheart were the English.
It wasn't. The "bad guys" were the Scottish nobles who sold him out.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.......

These decisions should not be put on an individual M.P. and they should not have the power to decide. Just what level of experience does he have?

Someone will benefit from this, and I am not talking of the convicted or his family.

Just my uninformed opinion, but then, who is fully informed :evil:

Anonymous

stevenmh wrote:

Or, it shows just how silly devolution really is. Lockerbie was an event of global significance, so bear with us if we don't immediately get used to the idea of a relative unknown chap ruling on the fate of such a significant convicted criminal.
Am thinking of some equivalent, maybe a convicted helper of the 7/7 bombings being released from a jail in the US by the sheriff from the fictional Dukes of Hazard.

^?!! So, what you wanted Brown to have the press conference and decide what is basically Scottish law, instead of the elected official in charge. Or maybe let the Americans decide for them both?

The law is the law, and I think it shows strengh and maturity to release him to die in Libya.

I do think Scotland has done the right thing.

When we as a society start to ignore the law, or say it does not apply in this case or that, then what do we become? Who is wrong and who is right? Just look at the Geneva Convention, Guantanamo and the myriad of massive topics that go along with just those two issues.

We are the little people, even our own MP's nick from us.

Eau Rouge

camerone wrote:

the person who slaughtered 270 people doesnt deserve humanity. he should die alone in jail. the people on the plane never got to hug their families goodbye.

You think we should follow the example of this disgusting act and give up what we believe in too and force the man to suffer as he dies? I don't know, following the example of murdering scum doesn't seem like a good thing to me...

Special K wrote:

Or, it shows just how silly devolution really is

What has devolution got to do with it? Scotland has had it's own legal system seperate to English law for a lot longer than devolution. The case was tried under that Scottish Law, in a Scottish court. It's exactly proper that his release be under Scottish law too.

You're analogy isn't that far off. If you get convicted of a non-Federal offence in the US, your fate is in the hands of that States own, seperate, legal system and the people who run it, not those in Washington.

-spider-

camerone wrote:

the person who slaughtered 270 people doesnt deserve humanity. he should die alone in jail. the people on the plane never got to hug their families goodbye.

That would be a ry dangerous reason not to show compasion and thankfully had nothing to do with the 'due process' that was followed by the Scottish Justice Secretary. Thankfully, we no longer live in a world of 'eye for an eye'. Other countries may choose different legal systems or indeed decide to invent legal systems for specific incidents (Guantanamo). I hope that we, in Britain, want nothing to do with that.

The UK Government set up some meetings between Blair and Gadaffi a number of years ago which, reportedly, involved discussions around Megrahi's transfer - despite this having nothing to do with UK jurisdiction (it was a devolved matter).
See : http://tiny.cc/ioXwi

He (the Scottish Justice Secretary) asked for more details of meetings concerning this matter that were available to the UK Government - this was refused. He therefore had to base his decision on the facts that he had available.

See Kenny MacAskill's full statement - http://tiny.cc/QO1ey

A very brave decision, and in my mind, the correct decision.

The fact that there is evidence that shows he (al-Megrahi) may be completely innocent anyway, is a separate issue.

passout

Hmmm...I think it's a tricky one this but I'm for it - simply because he is dying. It does look a bit like oil reserves has had something to do with it, bad timing I guess, I think that Scotland has made the decision for the right reasons though.

Frank the tank

There has always been doubt cast over the safety of his conviction in the first place, the involvement of Iran etc. The whole job is a can of worms.

FWIW, I think the decision is right but only because of the genuine doubt over his guilt in the first place, and he is a dead man walking I reckon he's a bit of a patsy. Had he been guilty beyond resonable doubt, no I'd have kept him inside until his sentence was served.

Ronnie Biggs, I'd have kept him locked up until he died.

hopper1

Frank the tank wrote:

There has always been doubt cast over the safety of his conviction in the first place, the involvement of Iran etc. The whole job is a can of worms.

FWIW, I think the decision is right but only because of the genuine doubt over his guilt in the first place, and he is a dead man walking I reckon he's a bit of a patsy. Had he been guilty beyond resonable doubt, no I'd have kept him inside until his sentence was served.

Ronnie Biggs, I'd have kept him locked up until he died.

+1

chriskempton

Frank the tank wrote:

There has always been doubt cast over the safety of his conviction in the first place, the involvement of Iran etc. The whole job is a can of worms.

FWIW, I think the decision is right but only because of the genuine doubt over his guilt in the first place, and he is a dead man walking I reckon he's a bit of a patsy. Had he been guilty beyond resonable doubt, no I'd have kept him inside until his sentence was served.

Ronnie Biggs, I'd have kept him locked up until he died.

But he's not being released because of any doubt about the conviction. Is the 'right' decision for the wrong reason satisfactory for the (many) victims' families?

A can of worms indeed.

Frank the tank

chriskempton wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

There has always been doubt cast over the safety of his conviction in the first place, the involvement of Iran etc. The whole job is a can of worms.

FWIW, I think the decision is right but only because of the genuine doubt over his guilt in the first place, and he is a dead man walking I reckon he's a bit of a patsy. Had he been guilty beyond resonable doubt, no I'd have kept him inside until his sentence was served.

Ronnie Biggs, I'd have kept him locked up until he died.

But he's not being released because of any doubt about the conviction. Is the 'right' decision for the wrong reason satisfactory for the (many) victims' families?

A can of worms indeed.

I understand that, He's being released 'cos he's going to die. That is where the dilema is, if he were to die in prison and then his appeal was to be upheld, Oh dear. If he were not going to die I'm sure due process would have followed.

One thing is sure, is there is doubt over his conviction.

-spider-

chriskempton wrote:

But he's not being released because of any doubt about the conviction. Is the 'right' decision for the wrong reason satisfactory for the (many) victims' families?

A can of worms indeed.

It was the right decision for the right reasons.

Megrahi's guilt or innocence is an entirely separate matter.

NWLondoner

Eau Rouge wrote:

camerone wrote:

the person who slaughtered 270 people doesn't deserve humanity. he should die alone in jail. the people on the plane never got to hug their families goodbye.

You think we should follow the example of this disgusting act and give up what we believe in too and force the man to suffer as he dies? I don't know, following the example of murdering scum doesn't seem like a good thing to me...

Special K wrote:

Or, it shows just how silly devolution really is

What has devolution got to do with it? Scotland has had its own legal system separate to English law for a lot longer than devolution. The case was tried under that Scottish Law, in a Scottish court. It's exactly proper that his release be under Scottish law too.

Your analogy isn't that far off. If you get convicted of a non-Federal offence in the US, your fate is in the hands of that States own, seperate, legal system and the people who run it, not those in Washington.

IIRC yes Scotland has had its own legal system longer than England has had hers and yes BOTH systems ran along side each other since the act of union.

However until devolution Scotland was under effect direct rule so this decision would have had to have been made by the Scottish Office (I.E Whitehall).

However as Scotland is a devolved nation now it is right and proper that they and ONLY they made the decision. If he was a National Security issue by releasing him then the UK Govt would have stepped in.


Personally I think he was a scape goat. It is more likely that Iran was behind the bombing in retaliation for the US Navy shooting down an Iranian Passenger Jet in the early 80's. I also still believe he should have been tried under English law with a 12 person jury and NOT 3 Scottish Judges under Scots law. The planting of the bomb took place in England and it IMO is always unwise to convict with NO jury trials. Especially as he was only convicted on circumstantial evidence.

daviesee

I had another thought while watching Newsnight.
How many other prisoners have been released in the past year on "compassionate" grounds?
If it is common then fair enough. If not, well........
I still think something stinks :evil:

stevenmh

daviesee wrote:

I had another thought while watching Newsnight.
How many other prisoners have been released in the past year on "compassionate" grounds?
If it is common then fair enough. If not, well........
I still think something stinks :evil:

24 in Scotland since 2000 and 48 in England since 2004 I believe. If those stats are wrong blame CNN or BBC as I can't remember where I heard them.

The U.S. should now just stopping yapping about it and get on with all the other far more important things. It has happened live with it.

Oh and did I say well done Scotland.... yes it seems I did, oh well. Well done.

daviesee

stevenmh wrote:

daviesee wrote:

I had another thought while watching Newsnight.
How many other prisoners have been released in the past year on "compassionate" grounds?
If it is common then fair enough. If not, well........
I still think something stinks :evil:

24 in Scotland since 2000 and 48 in England since 2004 I believe. If those stats are wrong blame CNN or BBC as I can't remember where I heard them.

The U.S. should now just stopping yapping about it and get on with all the other far more important things. It has happened live with it.

Oh and did I say well done Scotland.... yes it seems I did, oh well. Well done.

See, there you go. Nothing out of the ordinary.
No conspiricy, nothing to see here, move along.

Cheers

hopper1

Receiving a heroes welcome!... That's just f*cking wrong! :shock: :evil:
Whether his guilt was dubious, or not.
Libya and it's people should show more respect than that... B*stards.

finchy

hopper1 wrote:

Receiving a heroes welcome!... That's just f*cking wrong! :shock: :evil:
Whether his guilt was dubious, or not.
Libya and it's people should show more respect than that... B*stards.

I wasn't happy when I saw that, but then I thought that maybe if for the past 8 years, the government had been telling us that a British citizen had been unfairly convicted, maybe he/she would also receive a hero's welcome upon coming home.

Still, I think that in this case a bit of discretion should have been exercised.

I also hope that a posthumous appeal will be made so that the families will be able to see if justice was or was not done.

camerone

Eau Rouge wrote:

camerone wrote:

the person who slaughtered 270 people doesnt deserve humanity. he should die alone in jail. the people on the plane never got to hug their families goodbye.

You think we should follow the example of this disgusting act and give up what we believe in too and force the man to suffer as he dies? I don't know, following the example of murdering scum doesn't seem like a good thing to me...

Special K wrote:

Or, it shows just how silly devolution really is

What has devolution got to do with it? Scotland has had it's own legal system seperate to English law for a lot longer than devolution. The case was tried under that Scottish Law, in a Scottish court. It's exactly proper that his release be under Scottish law too.

You're analogy isn't that far off. If you get convicted of a non-Federal offence in the US, your fate is in the hands of that States own, seperate, legal system and the people who run it, not those in Washington.

I am not talking about capital punishment, life in prison means life in prison. oh no hang on lets send him home for a heros welcome. how the hell are we following the example of murderers, no one is killing him.

camerone

-spider- wrote:

camerone wrote:

the person who slaughtered 270 people doesnt deserve humanity. he should die alone in jail. the people on the plane never got to hug their families goodbye.

That would be a ry dangerous reason not to show compasion and thankfully had nothing to do with the 'due process' that was followed by the Scottish Justice Secretary. Thankfully, we no longer live in a world of 'eye for an eye'. Other countries may choose different legal systems or indeed decide to invent legal systems for specific incidents (Guantanamo). I hope that we, in Britain, want nothing to do with that.

The UK Government set up some meetings between Blair and Gadaffi a number of years ago which, reportedly, involved discussions around Megrahi's transfer - despite this having nothing to do with UK jurisdiction (it was a devolved matter).
See : http://tiny.cc/ioXwi

He (the Scottish Justice Secretary) asked for more details of meetings concerning this matter that were available to the UK Government - this was refused. He therefore had to base his decision on the facts that he had available.

See Kenny MacAskill's full statement - http://tiny.cc/QO1ey

A very brave decision, and in my mind, the correct decision.

The fact that there is evidence that shows he (al-Megrahi) may be completely innocent anyway, is a separate issue.

eye for an eye my ar5e, its not capital puinishment. i just dont think that any compassion is deserved, sorry.