Lockerbie Bomber Freed From Prison on Compassionate Grounds

[WillowTree]

Right then, just a refresher because I don't want to see the wrong posters slagged off.

Way back in the beginning of the thread I mentioned that severe doubt re the validity of the conviction plus terminal cancer gave the Scottish government grounds to consider compassionate release (apparently it's possible under Scottish law). They had the choice to release their prisoner to die at home or to leave him to die in prison.

If you had to make that decision, what factors would you consider?

That's a question I've been asking myself in pondering this thread.

The allegation of some sort of deal may well be true. If it is I'd suggest the current Scottish government is going to get a hammering from its electorate.

Now, fire away but make sure you've got the right target.

again, if his lawful conviction was in doubt a new trial was in order not release. Victimizing the victims again was not the answer.

 

[Diuretic]

Right then, just a refresher because I don't want to see the wrong posters slagged off.

Way back in the beginning of the thread I mentioned that severe doubt re the validity of the conviction plus terminal cancer gave the Scottish government grounds to consider compassionate release (apparently it's possible under Scottish law). They had the choice to release their prisoner to die at home or to leave him to die in prison.

If you had to make that decision, what factors would you consider?

That's a question I've been asking myself in pondering this thread.

The allegation of some sort of deal may well be true. If it is I'd suggest the current Scottish government is going to get a hammering from its electorate.

Now, fire away but make sure you've got the right target.

again, if his lawful conviction was in doubt a new trial was in order not release. Victimizing the victims again was not the answer.

The new trial point is fair enough. I haven't read a lot about the push for a new trial except that his defence dropped it. Perhaps the prognosis for survival was poor against the time it might have taken for a new trial. I don't know.

 

[ben sherman]

The Scots govt did it to save money, not for compassion ~ bunch of bagpipe-sucking, kirt-swirling freaks who can't even secede from the UK on their own.

Finally someone recognises where the blame lies! Don't tell Hook though. It takes away any justification for him to hate us cowardly English.

But I'm betting you wouldn't say the rest to the face of a Scot. Great protector the Internet.

Indeed it was the Scottish Justice Secretary that decided to release Megrahi nothing to do with the U.K government based in London,..........it was a Scottish decision take by a Scotsman in Scotand a member of the S.N.P tho I seriously doubt he arrived at his decision based on economic grounds. Who knows the real reason for his release? compassion? according to report in the Scottish Sunday Mail an x C.I.A agent reckons Iran was behind the bombing and for whatever reason the Scottish authorities didn't want this coming coming out at his appeal.............was it a deal with oil exploration in mind? hard to see this without the U.K government knowing about. I do know one thing and that is anyone asking the S.N.P about it is wasting their time these ***** lie and bluff every time they open their mouths..........

 

[Oliver]

So lets get a couple of things straight here.

Compassion has been a part of British and Scottish law for a long time. So it was not a arbitrary decision to release the man. It is law & precedent that was drawn on. In Scotland many prisoners have been released using compassion in a legal context.

This was not a money saving exercise. Really there is no point responding to that any further.

The UK does not have capital punishment and have not done for decades. So Brits train of thought on these matters is different to that of Americans who do have capital punishment. The UK works in a more rehabilitation and release or removal of freedoms way. Americans have the option of the ultimate punishment or vengeance. I give no opinion on what is right or wrong just an explanation of the difference in the way the UK and USA think about these things.


On another note the US has Guantanamo Bay. The UK population would not let the government get away with that.

Convicted IRA terrorists have been released from prison as part of the peace and reconciliation process. I have seen them entering the White House for St Patricks day celebrations amongst other things. Would like to know how do Americans feel about that?

The US have been funding freedom fighters/revolutionaries (Sadam Hussein), contras (Oliver North) and terrorists (IRA and Noraid) for years. It is the way superpowers work.

The UK is a sovereign state and as such can decide to do with its prisoners what it likes. Insensitive as they might have been, if the Scots had spoken to the US government the US would have said no don’t release him. Why. Because it plays really bad with the American public. Well what has the opinion of Americans got to do with Scottish law?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oliver, space ships and nuts'n'bolts. Pay attention, please. The IRA has nothing to do with this -- that dog does not hunt. You can't prove that it was not an economic decision, in'it. So sluff off, toff.

 

[WillowTree]

So lets get a couple of things straight here.

Compassion has been a part of British and Scottish law for a long time. So it was not a arbitrary decision to release the man. It is law & precedent that was drawn on. In the Scotland many prisoners have been released using compassion in a legal context.

This was not a money saving exercise. Really there is no point responding to that any further.

The UK does not have capital punishment in this country and have not done for decades. So Brits train of thought on these matters is different to that of Americans who do have capital punishment. The UK works in a more rehabilitation and release or removal of freedoms way. Americans have the option of the ultimate punishment or vengeance. I give no opinion on what is right or wrong just an explanation of the difference in the way the UK and USA think about these things.


On another note you have Guantanamo Bay. The UK population would not let the government get away with that.

Convicted IRA terrorists have been released from prison as part of the peace and reconciliation process. I have seen them entering the White House for St Patricks day celebrations amongst other things. Would like to know how do Americans feel about that?

The US have been funding freedom fighters/revolutionaries (Sadam Hussein), contras (Oliver North) and terrorists (IRA and Noraid) for years. It is the way superpowers work.

The UK is a sovereign state and as such can decide to do with its prisoners what it likes. Insensitive as it might have been, if the Scots had spoken to the US government the US would have said no don’t release him. Why. Because it plays really bad with the American public. Well what has the opinion of Americans got to do with Scottish law?

hypocritical, at best as none of you ever spare any diplomacy in telling the US what she should and should not do! so I mock you!





Again, I'm reading the newpapers, and the comments from across the divide. Many Brits and Scots are saying it was a deal for oil, I don't know, I've read that the Judge is going to make some kind of emercency statement in fromt of the Scottis parliament. tomorrow. America can do absolutely nothing about this decision.. Nothing but stay home and boycott Scotland.. You gave us the finger. We'll give it back. Thanks for listening.

 

[Diuretic]

Oliver, space ships and nuts'n'bolts. Pay attention, please. The IRA has nothing to do with this -- that dog does not hunt. You can't prove that it was not an economic decision, in'it. So sluff off, toff.

Can't prove it wasn't.

The allegation has come up, it hasn't been proven yet. Those alleging it though will do their damndest to prove it. The rest of us only have to wait for a while. If there's no evidence produced that it was an economic decision then we have to presume it wasn't an economic decision. Onus of proof is on those alleging.

 

[Diuretic]

So lets get a couple of things straight here.

Compassion has been a part of British and Scottish law for a long time. So it was not a arbitrary decision to release the man. It is law & precedent that was drawn on. In the Scotland many prisoners have been released using compassion in a legal context.

This was not a money saving exercise. Really there is no point responding to that any further.

The UK does not have capital punishment in this country and have not done for decades. So Brits train of thought on these matters is different to that of Americans who do have capital punishment. The UK works in a more rehabilitation and release or removal of freedoms way. Americans have the option of the ultimate punishment or vengeance. I give no opinion on what is right or wrong just an explanation of the difference in the way the UK and USA think about these things.


On another note you have Guantanamo Bay. The UK population would not let the government get away with that.

Convicted IRA terrorists have been released from prison as part of the peace and reconciliation process. I have seen them entering the White House for St Patricks day celebrations amongst other things. Would like to know how do Americans feel about that?

The US have been funding freedom fighters/revolutionaries (Sadam Hussein), contras (Oliver North) and terrorists (IRA and Noraid) for years. It is the way superpowers work.

The UK is a sovereign state and as such can decide to do with its prisoners what it likes. Insensitive as it might have been, if the Scots had spoken to the US government the US would have said no don’t release him. Why. Because it plays really bad with the American public. Well what has the opinion of Americans got to do with Scottish law?

hypocritical, at best as none of you ever spare any diplomacy in telling the US what she should and should not do! so I mock you!





Again, I'm reading the newpapers, and the comments from across the divide. Many Brits and Scots are saying it was a deal for oil, I don't know, I've read that the Judge is going to make some kind of emercency statement in fromt of the Scottis parliament. tomorrow. America can do absolutely nothing about this decision.. Nothing but stay home and boycott Scotland.. You gave us the finger. We'll give it back. Thanks for listening.

In other news the price of single malt Scotch has plummeted due to an American boycott. Joyous crowds in the rest of the world swarmed around liquor outlets to take advantage of the lower price.

 

[WillowTree]

So lets get a couple of things straight here.

Compassion has been a part of British and Scottish law for a long time. So it was not a arbitrary decision to release the man. It is law & precedent that was drawn on. In the Scotland many prisoners have been released using compassion in a legal context.

This was not a money saving exercise. Really there is no point responding to that any further.

The UK does not have capital punishment in this country and have not done for decades. So Brits train of thought on these matters is different to that of Americans who do have capital punishment. The UK works in a more rehabilitation and release or removal of freedoms way. Americans have the option of the ultimate punishment or vengeance. I give no opinion on what is right or wrong just an explanation of the difference in the way the UK and USA think about these things.


On another note you have Guantanamo Bay. The UK population would not let the government get away with that.

Convicted IRA terrorists have been released from prison as part of the peace and reconciliation process. I have seen them entering the White House for St Patricks day celebrations amongst other things. Would like to know how do Americans feel about that?

The US have been funding freedom fighters/revolutionaries (Sadam Hussein), contras (Oliver North) and terrorists (IRA and Noraid) for years. It is the way superpowers work.

The UK is a sovereign state and as such can decide to do with its prisoners what it likes. Insensitive as it might have been, if the Scots had spoken to the US government the US would have said no don’t release him. Why. Because it plays really bad with the American public. Well what has the opinion of Americans got to do with Scottish law?

hypocritical, at best as none of you ever spare any diplomacy in telling the US what she should and should not do! so I mock you!





Again, I'm reading the newpapers, and the comments from across the divide. Many Brits and Scots are saying it was a deal for oil, I don't know, I've read that the Judge is going to make some kind of emercency statement in fromt of the Scottis parliament. tomorrow. America can do absolutely nothing about this decision.. Nothing but stay home and boycott Scotland.. You gave us the finger. We'll give it back. Thanks for listening.

In other news the price of single malt Scotch has plummeted due to an American boycott. Joyous crowds in the rest of the world swarmed around liquor outlets to take advantage of the lower price.

and the scottish flag flys in Libya!

 

[tigerbob]

Funny isn't it. Not so long ago your countrymen were providing shelter, support and finance for terrorists. It was you Yanks who kept the IRA going, enabling them to murder innocent British civilians. Seems your standards are more than double pal!

After seeing what backstabbing bitches you guys are, I would say we didn't do enough and should have supported, sheltered and funded the IRA 100 fold more!

Enniskillen 1987 11 killed at a rememberance day parade,............Omagh 1998........29 killed all innocent civillian men women and children, all killed by the hands of your so called freedom fighters those bastards are no better than the Taliban that brought down the Twin Towers and if you really can find it in yourself to support such attrocites then you are indeed the scum of the earth.........................No Surrender

Twice I narrowly missed being caught up in IRA bomb blasts.

The Harrods bomb I missed by less than 5 minutes (I went into Knightsbridge tube by the Harrods door). The Sussex pub I missed by all of 30 seconds (I was taking a client to a restaurant called The Ivy for lunch and had walked past the windows of the Sussex half a minute earlier).

I don't know how the armed forces deal with stuff like that. I nearly jumped out of my skin when that thing went off.

 

[Oliver]

I apologise Jake. For the sake of this conversation we shall conveniently forget the goings on of the Americans as it suits the argument. I was merely using it to demonstrate your governments compassion when dealing with terrorists.
I would ask you to give this one a quick glance news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8215556.stm. For those who cannot be bothered it is about an American army officer apologising for the slaughter of 500 men women and children in Vietnam. What he did is not the point, the real point is he was convicted of 22 counts of murder and Nixon lowered his punishment to 3 years house arrest. So not only do the Scots have compassionate laws, so do the Americans.

WillowTree, gave you the finger? Why? Because the Scots did something you did not like? I am sure the White House is big enough to handle that. As for a boycott, I am sure those Americans who can afford to buy Scottish things will continue to do so. It is a consumer society that does not really run on principles. I don't see the French suffering after the Americans vowed never to eat french fries ever again (sorry too easy i know but I am sure you all found it funny too).

 

[ben sherman]

Right then, just a refresher because I don't want to see the wrong posters slagged off.

Way back in the beginning of the thread I mentioned that severe doubt re the validity of the conviction plus terminal cancer gave the Scottish government grounds to consider compassionate release (apparently it's possible under Scottish law). They had the choice to release their prisoner to die at home or to leave him to die in prison.

If you had to make that decision, what factors would you consider?

That's a question I've been asking myself in pondering this thread.

The allegation of some sort of deal may well be true. If it is I'd suggest the current Scottish government is going to get a hammering from its electorate.

Now, fire away but make sure you've got the right target.

again, if his lawful conviction was in doubt a new trial was in order not release. Victimizing the victims again was not the answer.

In Scotland if a prisoner has less than 3 months to live he can apply for release on compassionate grounds. In recent times there has 32 applications for early release 7 were refused. Had 32 from 32 been released I may have found the S.N.P's reasons easier to believe but I for one don't trust them it's hard to believe that there are 7 prisoners in Scotland who's crimes are considered worse than Megrahi's

 

[Diuretic]

hypocritical, at best as none of you ever spare any diplomacy in telling the US what she should and should not do! so I mock you!





Again, I'm reading the newpapers, and the comments from across the divide. Many Brits and Scots are saying it was a deal for oil, I don't know, I've read that the Judge is going to make some kind of emercency statement in fromt of the Scottis parliament. tomorrow. America can do absolutely nothing about this decision.. Nothing but stay home and boycott Scotland.. You gave us the finger. We'll give it back. Thanks for listening.

In other news the price of single malt Scotch has plummeted due to an American boycott. Joyous crowds in the rest of the world swarmed around liquor outlets to take advantage of the lower price.

and the scottish flag flys in Libya!

Are they playing an international friendly there?

 

[Diuretic]

Right then, just a refresher because I don't want to see the wrong posters slagged off.

Way back in the beginning of the thread I mentioned that severe doubt re the validity of the conviction plus terminal cancer gave the Scottish government grounds to consider compassionate release (apparently it's possible under Scottish law). They had the choice to release their prisoner to die at home or to leave him to die in prison.

If you had to make that decision, what factors would you consider?

That's a question I've been asking myself in pondering this thread.

The allegation of some sort of deal may well be true. If it is I'd suggest the current Scottish government is going to get a hammering from its electorate.

Now, fire away but make sure you've got the right target.

again, if his lawful conviction was in doubt a new trial was in order not release. Victimizing the victims again was not the answer.

In Scotland if a prisoner has less than 3 months to live he can apply for release on compassionate grounds. In recent times there has 32 applications for early release 7 were refused. Had 32 from 32 been released I may have found the S.N.P's reasons easier to believe but I for one don't trust them it's hard to believe that there are 7 prisoners in Scotland who's crimes are considered worse than Megrahi's

Fair point too - the other 7 will be a start for investigative journalists I would think.

 

[WillowTree]

I apologise Jake. For the sake of this conversation we shall conveniently forget the goings on of the Americans as it suits the argument. I was merely using it to demonstrate your governments compassion when dealing with terrorists.
I would ask you to give this one a quick glance news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8215556.stm. For those who cannot be bothered it is about an American army officer apologising for the slaughter of 500 men women and children in Vietnam. What he did is not the point, the real point is he was convicted of 22 counts of murder and Nixon lowered his punishment to 3 years house arrest. So not only do the Scots have compassionate laws, so do the Americans.

WillowTree, gave you the finger? Why? Because the Scots did something you did not like? I am sure the White House is big enough to handle that. As for a boycott, I am sure those Americans who can afford to buy Scottish things will continue to do so. It is a consumer society that does not really run on principles. I don't see the French suffering after the Americans vowed never to eat french fries ever again (sorry too easy i know but I am sure you all found it funny too).

yes, really you should be proud. screwed over the 270 victims and their families again, the scottish flag flys in libya and who gives a shit what Americans think anyway.

 

[WillowTree]

In other news the price of single malt Scotch has plummeted due to an American boycott. Joyous crowds in the rest of the world swarmed around liquor outlets to take advantage of the lower price.

and the scottish flag flys in Libya!

Are they playing an international friendly there?

there she is, long may she wave!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAv9hHgyqM4]YouTube - Lockerbie bomber arrives in Libya[/ame]

 

[Oliver]

yes, really you should be proud. screwed over the 270 victims and their families again, the scottish flag flys in libya and who gives a shit what Americans think anyway.

Hey I am not Scottish and I never said I was proud of the decision (I admire it & that is should symbolise & more mature, civilised and forgiving society). I am merely trying to offer on the one hand an explanation and on the other some rational that Americans might appreciate.

1. Its in Scottish law to do what they did.
2. The Americans have done similar things but in slightly different ways

All this nonsense about boycotts and retribution is meaningless.

And vengeance is what has lead us all into Afghanistan (where I shall be going in time). How many friends, relatives and innocents have died there as a result? Its never healthy and rarely makes things feel better or actually be better.

 

[WillowTree]

yes, really you should be proud. screwed over the 270 victims and their families again, the scottish flag flys in libya and who gives a shit what Americans think anyway.

Hey I am not Scottish and I never said I was proud of the decision (I admire it & that is should symbolise & more mature, civilised and forgiving society). I am merely trying to offer on the one hand an explanation and on the other some rational that Americans might appreciate.

1. Its in Scottish law to do what they did.
2. The Americans have done similar things but in slightly different ways

All this nonsense about boycotts and retribution is meaningless.

And vengeance is what has lead us all into Afghanistan (where I shall be going in time). How many friends, relatives and innocents have died there as a result? Its never healthy and rarely makes things feel better or actually be better.

funny just the other day the libtards were all about boycotting fox news and the sponsors of Beck.. now ,, I'd say boycotts are effective and I am one American who will never visit Scotland. and ya know what? Scotland can reciprocate and never visit me. Maybe they'll get lots of Libyan tourists to replace the Americans.. Hell the can run up the Libyan flag in Scotland to honor them furthur.

 

[Diuretic]

yes, really you should be proud. screwed over the 270 victims and their families again, the scottish flag flys in libya and who gives a shit what Americans think anyway.

Hey I am not Scottish and I never said I was proud of the decision (I admire it & that is should symbolise & more mature, civilised and forgiving society). I am merely trying to offer on the one hand an explanation and on the other some rational that Americans might appreciate.

1. Its in Scottish law to do what they did.
2. The Americans have done similar things but in slightly different ways

All this nonsense about boycotts and retribution is meaningless.

And vengeance is what has lead us all into Afghanistan (where I shall be going in time). How many friends, relatives and innocents have died there as a result? Its never healthy and rarely makes things feel better or actually be better.

The issue of the effect of the compassionate release hasn't, I think, been discussed here yet.

 

[Oliver]

funny just the other day the libtards were all about boycotting fox news and the sponsors of Beck.. now ,, I'd say boycotts are effective and I am one American who will never visit Scotland. and ya know what? Scotland can reciprocate and never visit me. Maybe they'll get lots of Libyan tourists to replace the Americans.. Hell the can run up the Libyan flag in Scotland to honor them furthur.

Sorry Willow don't know about that. Fox News is always a giggle though (and a little frightening at times). We don't really have anything like it in the UK.

I am sure the Scots will not mind if you don't visit (come to England instead its much better ). No seriously, stay in America.

I am sure lots of Americans will visit Scotland. Every time I am in America I meet loads of guys who can't wait to tell me they are Irish or Scottish (never English......thanks Mel you drink driving bastard ).