RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home

RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 5:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil Really? Because to me that mother who allowed her child to be punched and beaten to death being eligible for parole in 3 years is ignorant bullshit. Releasing someone convicted of murdering over 200 people being released 8 years into his sentence (being served in temperate accommodations where he's regularly fed, has access to medical care and drugs to treat illness) is ignorant bullshit. The UK: if you do the crime, you do the time - but just a little bit, then we give you a stern warning and send you on your way. Two points here. Baby P`s mother was ordered to be detained indefinitely, until she is no longer deemed to be a danger to small children. Her five year sentence is just a minimum that she will have to serve. Under European law, criminals must be told of a minimum date they will be considered for release. This doesnt mean it will happen. As for the Lockerbie bomber, he has been released because he has less than three months to live, in line with UK law. This isnt the same as many of you are suggesting, that somehow this is early release.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 5:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I dont recall the same level of indignation back then, as we see now for a dying man being sent home for his last few months. A dying man convicted of responsibility for 270 other deaths. Seems you forgot that part. You obviously missed my post where I said I thought he should stay in jail.

ANRsub -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 5:20:05 PM)
It has come down to the point of "What has been done, is done" . The government responsible for the decision to release IS subject to the respsonse of the voting populace, so the citezenry can have their ultimate say. Past that point, we're engaging in equine necro-bestial sadism (That's whippong a dead horse) so perhaps the discussion evolves into what the populace who disagrees with the decision made needs to do about that. Good luck on your side of the pond on this one, we've enough problems of our own in THIS side.

Aneirin -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 5:20:17 PM)
Scotland showed compassion for a dying man, now, that cannot be wrong, as acts of compassion have a habit of being seen and here, on the world stage. Just to think, if it causes one would be terrorist to reconsider their hatred of a society they don't know, then it will be worth it. The past is full of atrocities, and feelings of vengeance, but surely to move forward in this tense old world, we got to start thinking about the future by acting in the present, so our children's children don't get to suffer for the sins of their ancestors.

4u2spoil -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 5:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I dont recall the same level of indignation back then, as we see now for a dying man being sent home for his last few months. A dying man convicted of responsibility for 270 other deaths. Seems you forgot that part. You obviously missed my post where I said I thought he should stay in jail. Indeed I did. We agree on that point. Keeping him in jail, under humane conditions (medical care, family allowed to visit, expedited appeals process) would be no less compassionate than releasing him.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 8:25:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Where I actually do disagree with releasing this specific individual is that, on the balance of probabilities, he almost certainly didn't commit the crime he was convicted of (indeed a senior judge said, a while back, that if the evidence had been heard now, rather than back then, when people were baying for blood, that he almost certainly would have been acquitted). What he did do, however, was have prior knowledge of what was to take place, and acted as co-conspirator in the role of “fixer”, between the Libyan government and the men who did commit that awful act. So. The argument is, he didn't murder 270 people - he was just an accomplice in the murder of 270 people? I fail to see a significant distinction.

popeye1250 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 10:20:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 To Panda and Bita I do not see this as ''making a point'' it is something that defines who we are. Compassion is the difference between them and us and it is why we cherish it. I d not dismiss the suffering of his victims families bita hw dare you just because my views are beyond your ability to grasp it does not make me or this decision wrong. How dare you insinuate that I believe the lives of thee people were worth this decision? I would do anything within my power to have saved them including giving my own life what I said was worth this decisiosn is the grief and anger of those left behind no matter how terrible a price that is. where's my line? There is no line Bita like I said when you believe something you live it you don't pay lip service to it. My dismissal of their lives? You utter swineflu bita. I have never said you were unqualified to criticise panda what I have said is that saying things like what is wrong with you people is ignorant. If you're going tyo condemn the people of a nation make sure your own house is in order like I said. When I criticise gun laws in america I do not brand and charge the people I debate the issue. 4u2spoil no I have no idea what it is like to lose a family member in that way I can only imagine how horrendous it is. I agree that all you list is compassionate I don't agree the last is nuts though. Popeye ''so we can whack the cunt and his whole rotten family too!'' so you're no different to this prick you fucking animal. Starballs, I'm not feeing the loooove there buddy! Sure there's a differance between us, as of yet I haven't splashed an airliner with 270 people onboard. ("small differnce" to you I reckon.) They should have sent the cunt down to Texas, they like to chain people behind pickup trucks and take a little ride down a hard road. You can't be "nice" to psychopaths/sociopaths, it simply doesn't work. They're born without souls. Feeling "sorry" for a rabid dog you're about to shoot would make as much sense. I don't need to "understand" savages like this, I just want them dead. "No, Mr Bond, I want you to die!"

NorthernGent -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 10:47:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: numuncular is everyone in america oblivious to the fact that an important chunk of the evidence against him turns out to be questionable? And how exactly do you now? Are you privy to the evidence or is this media instruction who let's face it have form for being a business and creating a demand for newspapers. Were the evidence 'questionable' then there should have been a re-trial. Until then he is guilty as per the ruling in the courts.

endearing -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/21/2009 11:53:00 PM)
Part of what i read indicated Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was involved in the murdering of 270 people. i've also read that if he were to be tried at this time he would probably not be convicted. my question is, "Why would he probably not be convicted now?' "What is the evidence which would prove him to be innocent?" my father was diagnosed with cancer and was told he possibly had six months to live. He lived three more years. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was diagnosed as having prostate cancer and allowed to return to Libya -- who knows for sure how long he will live! -- terminal doesn't necessarily mean three months [it is an estimate] -- if he is guilty of the crime, undoubtedly he is not feeling totally bad at this time due to knowing he was able to walk away without having to serve the rest of his life sentence. It's highly understandable that family members and friends of the 270 victims would be highly upset -- those 270 people had no opportunity to go home and spend time with loved ones before perishing in the explosion.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 2:11:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda So. The argument is, he didn't murder 270 people - he was just an accomplice in the murder of 270 people? I fail to see a significant distinction. We could get into a debate about the actual trial, the evidence was suspect as I recall. The point being made is twofold, he was convicted under Scottish law, which allows the release of prisoners with less than two months to live. ( Edit, that should read three months ) The other point is that his accomplices, IE Libya itself, is now doing business with the US and UK, indeed oil companies actively lobbied for sanctions to be lifted. Im a little dismayed that anyone pointing out how our legal system works, is accused of not having sympathy for the victims.

housesub4you -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 2:19:23 AM)
Yea, I believe she was released last week. I think it is interesting how the whole "we are better then them" point of view comes into play. Compassion is not a right, nor does giving what some perceive as compassion always the best thing to do. He was released, so be it. Do you think he is home telling people how fair he was treated and thankful he was released, or do you believe he is brewing hate for being in prison? I wonder how many children his tales will begin the seeds of hate and what that will foster? I admit, I am not up to date on European Prison policies, nor do I know how politics comes into play on cases such as this. But releasing someone because of a "well his case might have been overturned" seems wrong. Let it go to trail. So was he released for the sake of compassion as stated in the media or for political reasoning? They are not one and the same? Perhaps they used the compassion story to sell it to the public. And as for his cancer, men can live with prostate cancer for quite some time. In general, when not treated they tend to die for other issues not the cancer. Because prostate cancer takes so long to kill. (the source of this comes from my college medical classes way back in the 90's, so they may not be 100% accurate)

4u2spoil -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 2:32:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The point being made is twofold, he was convicted under Scottish law, which allows the release of prisoners with less than two months to live. ( Edit, that should read three months ) Emphasis mine, but I think this is the point many people are so upset about. Allowing and mandating are two different things. Just because someone is eligible for parole doesn't mean you have to give it to them. And in this case, the gravity of the crime could easily be a reason NOT to give him an early release - for whatever legal reasons (parole, compassion) there may be. So if I'm misunderstanding and the law states that you HAVE to release someone who only has 3 months or less to live, regardless of offense or other circumstances, then I take back some of my arguments and say the law needs to be change. If however the law is that someone with an expected 3 months or less of life MAY be released if whatever body in charge of that decides they can go, then I stand behind everything I've said so far.

lally2 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 2:38:33 AM)
my knee jerk reaction was 'let him rot! - the people he killed and the people who lost them get no parole' but ive been thinking about that. with the proposed negotiations coming up with a faction of Taliban i think that maybe we need to show them how compassion works and that compassion and humanitarism is paramount if we are all to find peace.

DCWoody -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 2:55:07 AM)
A short note on the subject of light sentences....while I agree in general that the UK gives light sentences, it doesn't apply in this case. I don't recall what exactly he got, but it was expected that he'd never actually serve the full sentence....he'd die first, and that was right....he is dying first. The UK legal system allows for compassionate release of prisoners to die at home, regardless of their original crime, regardless of the amount of time they've served. Many may not agree with that, but many...including me, do. Either way, my point is that this is not a short sentences issue at all, his sentence has been cut short because he hasn't lived long enough to serve it.....this is, IMO...fairly clearly a prisoner treatment, and particularly a prisoner family treatment, issue. I don't think that political considerations SHOULD have affected the scots judgement, but it has happened to have a good effect I think. That crowd at the airport to welcome him home were waving scottish flags....not burning them, that's got to be a good sign.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 3:03:39 AM)
I think it was between 25 and 30 years DCWoody.

NorthernGent -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 3:22:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Jesus christ, what is wrong with you people over there? Panda: your posturing would be comical were it not for the deaths of a lot of people. The United States government has no desire to alienate an energy rich nation; nor does the British government. As it happens the intelligence and evidence gathered in Britain suggested that the culprits were Syrians but attention was diverted away from them because the United States was attempting to enlist Syria in the first gulf war. It's nothing whatsoever to do with 'you people over there': it's a matter of geopolitics to which all governments are beholden. As a consequence of the release: the British and US governments are able to condemn Scotland because they're no threat to their interests and it follows thus they will save face in the process; the Scottish get their moment in the international spotlight; the Libyans have their man back; British and US interests in the Middle East are strengthened (it will help remove the bureacratic obstacles to the oil companies involved in that region e.g. BP and ensure that the likes of Libyans do not pursue nuclear armament). All of the governments are happy; none of them care about the truth because it will threaten so many interests in the Middle East. All of this is part of a wider approach to Middle Eastern nations: grant them concessions in order to secure oil and move them away from nuclear armament. It doesn't need to be said that 'you people over there' are a major player in this state of affairs. Incidentally: distinguished lawyers have cast serious doubt on the reliability of the evidence. They suggest that the evidence and intelligence gathered means that the wrong man was deliberately convicted.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 4:40:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The point being made is twofold, he was convicted under Scottish law, which allows the release of prisoners with less than two months to live. ( Edit, that should read three months ) Emphasis mine, but I think this is the point many people are so upset about. Allowing and mandating are two different things. Just because someone is eligible for parole doesn't mean you have to give it to them. And in this case, the gravity of the crime could easily be a reason NOT to give him an early release - for whatever legal reasons (parole, compassion) there may be. So if I'm misunderstanding and the law states that you HAVE to release someone who only has 3 months or less to live, regardless of offense or other circumstances, then I take back some of my arguments and say the law needs to be change. If however the law is that someone with an expected 3 months or less of life MAY be released if whatever body in charge of that decides they can go, then I stand behind everything I've said so far. You are quite right that it is discretionary, all factors are taken into account though, including medical evidence. The decision for release was taken by Kenny MacAskill, who also refused the transfer of Magrahi back to Libya two years ago ( When Blair pushed for it ) At that time he said he didnt want to upset the relatives of the victims. Here is a link with a bit more info on it. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7fc9399a-8e7e-11de-87d0-00144feabdc0.html

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 4:41:35 AM)
NG, nice post.

4u2spoil -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 5:35:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 my knee jerk reaction was 'let him rot! - the people he killed and the people who lost them get no parole' but ive been thinking about that. with the proposed negotiations coming up with a faction of Taliban i think that maybe we need to show them how compassion works and that compassion and humanitarism is paramount if we are all to find peace. To me it only shows that compassion is something directly related to political gain - in this case Libya's oil. If he wasn't involved - in any way - with the bombing, I still say the compassionate thing to do would have been to expedite a review or hearing on the verdict and original evidence, and give him a full release with a cleared record. To do so would be both respectful of the families, and a message that the interest is in justice rather than propaganda. If the evidence did hold up, providing medical treatment to him in prison and allowing his family to see him in his final days would still be a sign of compassion. I can't emphasize enough that him being imprisoned in Scotland may not be a walk in the park, but is far superior to the conditions in many prisons around the world. It's not the rotting away that happens in impoverished countries where prisoners sleep in crowded cells on concrete, aren't regularly fed or fed very poor quality food, are in cells that are excessively hot or cold, don't have access to medical treatment, and are really, truly suffering because of the conditions in which they're kept. The taliban has never treated their captures with even half the humanity this guy got in prison. Magrahi was never at risk of being beheaded, beaten, tortured, having limbs cut off...

Aneirin -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/22/2009 5:52:39 AM)
NG [sm=applause.gif] The original conviction, I suppose it should be asked where exactly did the intelligence. come from that named this man

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875