Libyan Bomber To Go Home

Special K

Did you see MacAskill on Newsnight?

What an embarrassment.

For me, he's joined a select group that includes Gordon Brown, Tom McKillop, Fred Goodwin and Alistair Darling.

Nice work boys.

Wallace1492

[quote="NWLondoner 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.[/quote]

The bomb was actually planted in Malta and transferred via Frankfurt. There are Jury trails with Scots Law and English Law, but in this case it was anticipated no jury could sit because of the publicity, so makes no difference at all whether Scots Law or English. But as the crime took place in Scotland, it is right that it was Scots law. Please get facts right.

Wallace1492

Special K wrote:

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.

Get over yourself, there is life north of Watford Gap. Being one from Haggisland who spends time in London, there is very little coverage of Scottish affairs, so you would be as likely to know McAskill as the Justice Minister for Peru.

Wallace1492

Special K wrote:

Did you see MacAskill on Newsnight?

What an embarrassment.

For me, he's joined a select group that includes Gordon Brown, Tom McKillop, Fred Goodwin and Alistair Darling.

Nice work boys.

What about Andy Hornby, Adam Applegarth, Matt Ridley, countless city trader fat cats?

spen666

NWLondoner wrote:

..... 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.

Whooops

You've just prejudiced the case.

The prosecution allegation was bomb was put on Pan Am plane at Frankfurt

If you say it happened in London, then you have decided a key disputed question of fact before the trial takes place

There was no grounds for a trial in England at all.
Scotland, Germany, Malta etc may be, but England no

robmanic1

This will all be forgotten about after the next Big Brother eviction. It's all worked out pretty well. US get to complain about his release without having to go through a re-trial to discover who the real culprits were and mess up any chance of getting their hands on the black stuff, he's due to pop his clogs soon anyway so it's unlikely that we'll ever know the truth, and Libya get a guy back who they believe was wrongly convicted and treat him in much the same way as any other nation would.

The whole thing is highly dubious, the guilty decision was reached far too conveniently, all loose ends tidied up nicely, nothing more to see, can we please have some of your oil now mr Gaddafi?

Conspiracy? I don't make the rules.

spen666

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.

take a step back and look at it like this.

Firstly he and Libya say he is innocent

At time he went forward to stand trial Libya was subject to sanctions from the West. His standing trial helped end the sanctions. Sanctions did not relate to Locerbie incident

To the people of Libya he therefore selflessly sacrificed his freedom to get the sanctions lifted for them. Some one sacrificing their freedom to help others is a hero are they not?

Special K

spen666 wrote:

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.

take a step back and look at it like this.

Firstly he and Libya say he is innocent

At time he went forward to stand trial Libya was subject to sanctions from the West. His standing trial helped end the sanctions. Sanctions did not relate to Locerbie incident

To the people of Libya he therefore selflessly sacrificed his freedom to get the sanctions lifted for them. Some one sacrificing their freedom to help others is a hero are they not?

an interesting perspective, thanks I hadn't thought of it like that - it would be interesting to see how this is reported in France, say, or Russia.

robmanic1

Dead right spen, although my gut reaction was much the same as hopper's when I first saw it, but there is much more to it than meets the eye.

A re-trial should have been the only way to resolve this but would never be allowed to happen in case the truth should come out. As I stated earlier, it all worked out pretty conveniently in the end, Obama should just let it lie (and he will after a little empty fist-shaking).

Wallace1492

Everyone a winner then eh?.... except:

The 270 people who lost their lives
Megrahi who spent time in jail for something he probably didn't do.
Libya paying out compensation for something they were not involved in (allegedly)
The true perpetrators not being held accountable

I think the USA knows who did it, but it is more convenient to blame Libya

robmanic1

Wallace1492 wrote:

Everyone a winner then eh?.... except:

The 270 people who lost their lives
Megrahi who spent time in jail for something he probably didn't do.
Libya paying out compensation for something they were not involved in (allegedly)
The true perpetrators not being held accountable

I think the USA knows who did it, but it is more convenient to blame Libya

Totally agree wallace, hope you took my comment as tongue-in-cheek, as it was intended, I did mean that it all worked out well for some but not, of course, the innocents.

NWLondoner

Oops. I always remembered heathrow for getting the blame. In that case maybe malta should have tried him. In any event I still maintain that you should only have jury trials. Convicting on the reported lack of evidence with only 3 judges will always ask questions. this event will hopefully lead to a public enquiry so the families can finally find the answers that they need.

finchy

Jake151 wrote:

IMO he should have stayed in prison, He killed 270 people and because he himself is going to die he gets let out! Thats disgusting. The law in England is ridiculous, all because of human rights, yeh well what about the human rights of the person that the prosecuted person killed, burgled, sexually harassed, raped ect ect what happened to THEIR human rights?! No one thinks about them but only the one who is being prosecuted. Its disgusting makes me feel sick to my stomach that people will stick up for people getting a life sentence for murder or something similar and yet what about the person he/she has murdered? Who sticks up for them!?

For his crime MASS MURDER he should have died in that prison cancer or no cancer.

and for that heroes welcome! My jaw hit the floor to say the least

/rant

I am sorry if my views are not that same as yours, but this is how I feel.

No need to apologise for your views - it's a free country!

But people are speaking in favour of his release not because they're in favour of releasing murderers, but because there appears to be very substantial doubt over the man's guilt.

My personal take on it is the same as FrankTank's - if we let him go, he's going to die a painful death in a few months anyway, so it's not exactly as if he's escaping punishment.

If we keep him locked up, and then his appeal is upheld, an innocent man will have died in prison away from his family.

Wallace1492

Robmanic1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Everyone a winner then eh?.... except:

The 270 people who lost their lives
Megrahi who spent time in jail for something he probably didn't do.
Libya paying out compensation for something they were not involved in (allegedly)
The true perpetrators not being held accountable

I think the USA knows who did it, but it is more convenient to blame Libya

Totally agree wallace, hope you took my comment as tongue-in-cheek, as it was intended, I did mean that it all worked out well for some but not, of course, the innocents.

Absolutely. Tis a very emotive subject. Whether you agree with it or not, freeing him is an immensely brave move. Would have been far cosier just to leave him in jail.

cee

NWLondoner wrote:

Oops. I always remembered heathrow for getting the blame. In that case maybe malta should have tried him. In any event I still maintain that you should only have jury trials. Convicting on the reported lack of evidence with only 3 judges will always ask questions. this event will hopefully lead to a public enquiry so the families can finally find the answers that they need.

But that is just the point. there is no reason for a further inquiry because he has dropped his appeal, and therefor is not disputing his guilt formally anymore.

Good point though...they reckon half of the victims families were for realease, half against. Of the half that were against his release, there were some eye-eye style reasons, but the one that stuck out for me is that they wanted him to appeal.

There was a very good interview with a church minister, whose daughter was on the flight. He said..he didn't want him released, because he wanted the appeal to take place in order that more information about what actually happened to be discovered. When asked about his opinion of megrahi's involvement in the case, he said on the balance of evidence that he had personally seen and read, he probably none.

So if the best reason for not giving compassionate release is so that more information can be found in an appeal where the consensus is that megrahi is probably innnocent....I do not agree with.

Personally, I agree with the decision that was made.

nolf

Umm for those who are saying it is compatible with the Scottish judicial system, it wasn't a decision made by a member of it.

He is a Scottish Minister for justice not a member of the juiciary.

he overuled the decision of the court, as they sentenced him to a long prison sentence.

So this isn't a case of Scottish justice etc, it's the case of a Scottish minister overuling the court and applying his own judgement. He personally felt that this man should be let free, so it's not a reflection of the judiciary in any way.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing but I think it's an important distinction.

nolf

As for what I think, I think that he has been convicted by a court of respected judges. He has already had 1 appeal which failed, and was denied any more appeals.

Whether or not you believe he is guilty it is a matter for the court. You can't justify releasing him prematurely on the grounds that he may be innocent as that completely bypasses the rule of law.

I also don't think the Scottish minister has the right to allow someone to go free. The families deserve justice, and justice is that he dies incarcerated. Allow his family to visit him by all means, and treat him with dignity etc. But he shouldn't be allowed to go free- unless a Scottish court says he's innocent.

afx237vi

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 wonder how many of the Americans who are foaming at the mouth about the Lockerbie bomber were on their feet giving Lt William Calley a standing ovation yesterday...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 215556.stm

Murdered far more people than Megrahi, served far less time in jail.

stevenmh

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.

Actually I think the images we have seen on TV are very misleading. I doubt there were that many people there and the ones I have seen all seem to be orchestrated rather than a real celebration. All done for TV.

I cannot believe that some people are having a go at the Scottish Minister. For once a minister sticks his head out makes a very brave decision, speaks eloquently, proffessionally etc.

I am angered however by the US reaction, in particular the FBI. Just because the US does X does not mean the rest of the world does the same. You want justice, just look at Guantanamo. :evil:

Well done Scotland, you have made me proud (and I am English).

spen666

nolf wrote:

Umm for those who are saying it is compatible with the Scottish judicial system, it wasn't a decision made by a member of it.

He is a Scottish Minister for justice not a member of the juiciary.

he overuled the decision of the court, as they sentenced him to a long prison sentence.

Erm wrong and wrong

The minister forms part of the judicial system in that he has the power to make the decision he did. - it was not an ultra vires decision

The minister has NOT over ruled the court. The verdict is still guilty. The Executive have always had the power to release someone on compasionate grounds. Witness the 24 other cases in recent times in Scotland where the same has happened.

So this isn't a case of Scottish justice etc, it's the case of a Scottish minister overuling the court and applying his own judgement. He personally felt that this man should be let free, so it's not a reflection of the judiciary in any way.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing but I think it's an important distinction.

spen666

nolf wrote:

As for what I think, I think that he has been convicted by a court of respected judges. He has already had 1 appeal which failed, and was denied any more appeals.

Whether or not you believe he is guilty it is a matter for the court. You can't justify releasing him prematurely on the grounds that he may be innocent as that completely bypasses the rule of law.

I also don't think the Scottish minister has the right to allow someone to go free.

He clearly does have that power. Witnessed by the fact the male in question was indeed released and has returned home.

The families deserve justice, and justice is that he dies incarcerated. Allow his family to visit him by all means, and treat him with dignity etc. But he shouldn't be allowed to go free- unless a Scottish court says he's innocent.

BTW on a point of order- British criminal courts don't have a verdict of innocent- the verdicts are GUILTY, NOT PROVEN ( Scotland only) and NOT GUILTY

Not Guilty does not mean you are innocent, it means you are not guilty

Cressers

Does Scotland need lectures in justice from the perpetrators of the Gauntanamo bay torture camp and extrodinary rendition?

spen666

Cressers wrote:

Does Scotland need lectures in justice from the perpetrators of the Gauntanamo bay torture camp and extrodinary rendition?

A very good comment - see also the reference above to the US General

MattC59

daviesee wrote:

Most people think that the "bad guys" in the film Braveheart were the English.

And...... I thought the good guy was Australian ?!!?

Anyway........

My usual view would be to let him rot in gaol, if you're given a sentence, yoiu should serve all of it.
However......... if he's going to rot in a hospital bed, with expensive security and expensive treatment and drugs......... send him home. Let the Libian government pay for his care.

Someone on here (sorry, can't remember who) that cancer or not, he should rot in gaol. I agree, but he can't be left in gaol with no treatment. whether you agree with that or not, the simple fact is he'll be treated.

So, should the question have been...........
'Should the UK treat him for cancer, or send him home ?'

MattC59

spen666 wrote:

Not Guilty does not mean you are innocent, it means you are not guilty

Hi Spen,
I think this might need a little more explaination....... I think I know what you mean;
If you are found 'Not Guilty' you are innocent of the specific charges brought against you, but you may be guilty of other involvement.

Correct ?

Cheers........ M

daviesee

MattC59 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Not Guilty does not mean you are innocent, it means you are not guilty

Hi Spen,
I think this might need a little more explaination....... I think I know what you mean;
If you are found 'Not Guilty' you are innocent of the specific charges brought against you, but you may be guilty of other involvement.

Correct ?

Cheers........ M

I think it means "we think you are guilty, just can't prove it".

If there is enough evidence to prove someone 100% innocent, chances are it won't make it to court in the first place.

Richard_D

I can not comment legally as I am an engineer not a lawyer but it has always seemd to me that being found Not Guilty spans everything from Innocent of the charged offence to Insufficient evidence presented to convict. See the number of cases recently where private proceedings have resulted in the offender being fined even when the Crown case has failed.

spen666

Not guilty means nothing more than the court are not satisfied you are guilty of the offence charged.


I have represented many people who did the acts alleged, but were found not guilty by a court on what the media call a technicality.

spen666

Richard_D wrote:

I can not comment legally as I am an engineer not a lawyer but it has always seemd to me that being found Not Guilty spans everything from Innocent of the charged offence to Insufficient evidence presented to convict.

I agree with the abocve

See the number of cases recently where private proceedings have resulted in the offender being fined even when the Crown case has failed.

I am not aware of any case where this has happened. I think you may be confusing civil actions with criminal prosecutions.

If someone is found not guilty in a criminal case, then with one exception it is not possible to be tried again for the same offence.


BTW you do not get "fined" in civil cases, you may be ordered to pay compensation. A fine goes to the state. Compensation goes to the "victim"

daviesee

Hello again,

Just out of curiosity I looked at the web pages of all the major American newspapers.

What did I find relating to this story on every single main page?

Absolutely nothing :shock:

Don't believe the hype :evil: