QuoteMOUNT LAUREL, N.J. – The release from prison Thursday of the only person ever convicted in the 1988 bombing that killed 270 people aboard a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland angered and outraged victims' relatives, who said they were left feeling wronged again.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released Thursday after serving eight years of a life sentence in a Scottish prison. Scottish officials said the former Libyan intelligence officer's prostate cancer was advancing and that they were bound by Scottish values to release him. He was recently given only months to live.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_re_us/us_us_lockerbie_families (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_re_us/us_us_lockerbie_families)
Pathetic.
QuoteScottish officials said the former Libyan intelligence officer's prostate cancer was advancing and that they were bound by Scottish values to release him.
Scottish values do not include justice it seems.
What is so horribly wrong about him dying in a prison hospital? Tons of convicts do.
QuoteScottish values
Haggis, deep fried Mars bars and being a tightwad?
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 12:56:56 PM
QuoteScottish officials said the former Libyan intelligence officer's prostate cancer was advancing and that they were bound by Scottish values to release him.
Scottish values do not include justice it seems.
What is so horribly wrong about him dying in a prison hospital? Tons of convicts do.
Scottish values = support for terrorists.
Quote from: Weatherman on August 20, 2009, 12:53:40 PM
QuoteMOUNT LAUREL, N.J. – The release from prison Thursday of the only person ever convicted in the 1988 bombing that killed 270 people aboard a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland angered and outraged victims' relatives, who said they were left feeling wronged again.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released Thursday after serving eight years of a life sentence in a Scottish prison. Scottish officials said the former Libyan intelligence officer's prostate cancer was advancing and that they were bound by Scottish values to release him. He was recently given only months to live.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_re_us/us_us_lockerbie_families (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_re_us/us_us_lockerbie_families)
Pathetic.
Sickening.
Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.
Dude was a scapegoat anyway.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.
Secular humanists' secret war against America continues.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F1227%2F1803w.jpg&hash=7ca98713bcabd067122d0a9ad1f8c43d064e119c)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 02:23:56 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F1227%2F1803w.jpg&hash=7ca98713bcabd067122d0a9ad1f8c43d064e119c)
:pinch: Torn tendons are not fun.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.
It must be the Texan in me but my immediate reaction to convicted murderers is wanting a hanging Judge Roy Bean style. :blush:
Lynch mob :yeah:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.highlanders.co.nz%2Fimages%2Fhighlander_resam.jpg&hash=e20800d58825df65a44f8569082b28e3d6b14dd0) ?
FREEDOM....... for terrorists!
I actually support this move by the Executive. Unrelated question, in the US is it known as the Pan Am 103 disaster?
However, the Scottish government have royally fucked it all up. This should embarrass the SNP, because it's been handled dreadfully:
QuoteA disastrous debut on the world stage
Scotland's treatment of the Lockerbie bomber has sacrificed compassion, truth and its good name
Magnus Linklater
It is hard to overstate the three issues at the heart of the Lockerbie affair. The first is compassion — for a man, who may be innocent, and is dying in prison. The second is justice — the search for truth about a deadly act of terrorism. The third is reputation — the probity and good name of a government seeking to balance all these against the need to do the right thing.
To sacrifice all three in the course of a week, while at the same time emerging as weak, indecisive, secretive and self-serving, is a quite spectacular achievement. Yet that is what the Nationalist administration in Scotland has succeeded in doing in the course of its first important appearance on the international stage.
In seeking to resolve the fate of the Lockerbie bomber, it has failed to show humanity, failed to uphold the judicial process and failed to demonstrate its ability to manage events in a fair and coherent manner. "Diplomacy," said Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Prime Minister, "is about surviving till the next century — politics is about surviving until Friday." On both counts it has floundered.
No one, to be fair, should underestimate the dilemma that Scottish ministers have been facing — one that would tax even the minds of Moral Maze. A man convicted by a Scottish court of causing the deaths of 270 innocent people is serving life in prison.
The years roll by as a lengthy appeal process unwinds, each time attracting an accumulation of doubt as campaigners dig up claim and counterclaim, suggesting that the conviction was unsafe. Meanwhile, the man himself develops prostate cancer and is said to be close to death. The final appeal, his family say, may come too late.
At this point, a justice minister of mature judgment might have taken stock by consulting those most directly involved — his own law officers, his opposite numbers in London and Washington, his predecessors in office.
This, after all, is not a party matter, but one that involves a wide range of interested, and passionate, participants. He would also have been well advised to keep his counsel until he was absolutely clear what he intended to do.
So far, so straightforward. No need to state anything in public, no need to indicate which way your mind is moving, simply wait until you have reached a decision, then tell the people what it is. As Macchiavelli put it: "If, to be sure, you need to conceal a fact with words, do it in such a way that it does not become known, or, if it does become known, that you have a ready and quick defence."
The sequence that unravelled was so completely the opposite of this that you could conclude only that the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, a liberal-minded lawyer, whose views on penal affairs have been sensible and well argued, was making it up as he went along. From a position where a strong line was held — ministers are staying out of this and leaving the judicial process to take its course — it took on the pattern of a deranged polygraph.
After indicating that he was "minded" to release the bomber on compassionate grounds, Mr MacAskill did something Macchiavelli would certainly have forbidden — he went into prison to see the man himself. Minister and terrorist face to face, a meeting that ensured that Mr MacAskill was no longer at arm's length from the affair.
What did they say to each other? We do not know. But within days, it emerged that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi would indeed be released on compassionate grounds, and might well be back in Libya within a week — in time for Ramadan.
There were, of course, protests from American relatives, but those had been expected. The case would continue, they were told, even in the absence of the accused. But then, just as we were adjusting to this, the defence team announced that it was dropping his appeal.
This had the immediate effect of alienating not only those who had argued that al-Megrahi should stay in prison, but those who wanted him returned; they had always insisted that the case must go on so that his name would be cleared. The immediate supposition was that a deal had been done in that prison cell, perhaps to prevent embarrassing disclosures in the High Court. As for the rest of us, we mourned that the last chance of getting at the truth of this murky, contentious and unresolved mystery was now lost.
Worse, the good reputation of the Scottish judicial system — a prosecution case almost 20 years in the making, and approved by successive lord advocates — was being undermined. It could not, surely, get any worse than that. Except that it could. Enter Hillary Clinton from left field, who succeeded, as secretaries of state do, in getting the Justice Minister's telephone number and giving him an earful. The State Department wanted al-Megrahi held in prison.
At this, the last pretence to a coherent line was dropped, and it was indicated that the Libyan would not after all be returned — at least not yet — and the minister was still "considering" the case. So what we have at present, though the line is changing so fast I may be out of date already, is a convicted terrorist, who has, by dropping his appeal, conceded that he is guilty; held in prison, presumably to die there, with the issue of compassionate release shelved; and the possibility of resolving the matter in the High Court dead in the water.
It is the worst of all possible worlds. The SNP administration of Alex Salmond, which never loses an opportunity of scoring political points to boost its standing in the polls, has failed to demonstrate that, when it comes to the serious business of government, it is capable of rising to the occasion. That not only undermines its reputation as a party, it is a disservice to the nation that it claims to represent.
I think it's more of a case of "selective compassion". :scots:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-lockerbie21-2009aug21,0,1431516.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-lockerbie21-2009aug21,0,1431516.story)
QuoteLockerbie terrorist's release is an ugly act of 'mercy'
The muted U.S. reaction to the bomber's repatriation to Libya adds to the insult to justice.
August 21, 2009
The release by Scotland of Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi, who was expected to spend his life in prison for the 1988 bombing of a Pan American jetliner, was merciful, certainly, but an outrage nonetheless. The "compassionate release" of the terminally ill Libyan terrorist showed no compassion for relatives of the 270 people killed when the jet exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. Compounding their trauma was the muted protest of the Obama administration.
Instead of viewing the special relationship between the United States and Britain as a cause for candor, the president, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. resorted to diplomatic circumlocution. The president called Megrahi's release "a mistake" and was reduced to asking Libyan dictator Moammar Kadafi not to treat Megrahi as a hero and to place him under house arrest. Clinton issued a statement calling the release "deeply disappointing." Holder shifted into passive voice to say that the interests of justice "have not been served by this decision."
This country has a special interest in punishment for Megrahi because 189 of the victims were Americans, including 35 Syracuse University students returning home for the Christmas season. But whatever their nationality, they were innocent victims of an attack that virtually defined the term "terrorism." For many of their families, a life sentence was the minimum punishment to be meted out to Megrahi. His release and repatriation after serving only eight years thus upends their expectations and undermines the argument that life in prison is an acceptable alternative to execution.
In announcing that he was releasing Megrahi because of the prisoner's advanced prostate cancer, Scottish Minister of Justice Kenny MacAskill sought to shift blame to Britain, which has sole authority in foreign affairs. He said the British government had declined to offer an opinion on the proposed transfer, and also noted that officials from London had negotiated a prisoner-transfer agreement with Libya that failed to provide exclusion for Megrahi. Yet neither that agreement nor Scottish guidelines for compassionate release required MacAskill to release the terrorist. MacAskill's blinkered interpretation of "compassion" took no account of the enormity of Megrahi's crime or his refusal to acknowledge his guilt. Nor are victims' families likely to be assuaged by MacAskill's patronizing promise that Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power."
It's naive to pretend that foreign policy considerations never affect the administration of justice. But no reason of state justified Megrahi's release. Libya already has been amply rewarded by the West for renouncing the development of weapons of mass destruction.
In reacting to Megrahi's release, relatives of the victims used words such as "disgusting" and "outrage." The Obama administration should have been equally, and openly, appalled.
Fail on all sides.
Scotland, for being Euroweenies as usual.
And, as one of the victims' fathers said, if the US government really didn't want this guy to get out, he wouldn't get out.
I was impressed at the homecoming he got at the airport in Libya. Lots of love there for terrorists still.
Quote from: citizen k on August 21, 2009, 03:00:35 AM
I think it's more of a case of "selective compassion". :scots:
I've a number of points about this.
First of all there are very serious concerns that this wasn't an entirely fair conviction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/europe/28cnd-lockerbie.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
Second, if those allegations are true Scottish justice contains three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not proven basically means there's not strong enough evidence for a conviction, but there's also not strong enough evidence for a declaration of innocence. I disagree with this system because I think a defendant has a right to either be convicted or declared innocent, but it's in Scots law. On appeal, and the appeal seems relatively strong with a number of unanswered questions, the verdict of 'not proven' could be given which would release the guy.
Third I don't think anyone ever really thought that this guy was behind it. Even if he had planted the bomb no-one is of the opinion that he was the man behind the decision to bomb the plane or that he was, in that sense, really responsible. So the conviction was, to some extent, symbolic. We'll jail the man who put the bomb on the plane because we can't get the guys who are really behind it/the Libyans won't give them up or whatever. The sad truth is that to some extent he was largely just a symbol of the detente between the West and Gaddafi.
He has a month or so to live, I have no problem with him living out the rest of his time in Libya because I think his conviction could have been unsound and he was a largely symbolic prisoner anyway. Though I think when someone has a terminal illness that will kill them very shortly that a degree of compassion on the part of the justice system is no bad thing. Having said that I think that he apparently had to drop his appeal is deeply unfortunate. I would have liked compassion with truth and an attempt to find answers in one of the most complicated cases in the world.
I would also add that I don't really think the American administration could have prevailed on the Scots one way or the other, because I don't think the British Prime Minister could have. The Lockerbie investigation has always been a Scottish affair run by Lord Advocates and Secretaries of State for Scotland, since devolution by Lord Advocates and Scottish Ministers of Justice. I don't think the American government could feasibly have done anything with this anymore than the British government could have much pull with the Attorney General of California (for example) when dealing with a nation state and a devolved state within a nation there's no real incentives or threats that the US could make that would be particular to Scotland, so they could only make them to the UK which has no constitutional right to interfere with Scots justice. I think if the US, beyond making phonecalls and sending letters, tried to deal directly with the Scots on this then it would piss off the British government with whom the US deals with on every other issue. I just don't think it's plausible in a situation involving a devolved state.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 07:26:37 AM
I've a number of points about this.
First of all there are very serious concerns that this wasn't an entirely fair conviction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/europe/28cnd-lockerbie.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
Second, if those allegations are true Scottish justice contains three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not proven basically means there's not strong enough evidence for a conviction, but there's also not strong enough evidence for a declaration of innocence. I disagree with this system because I think a defendant has a right to either be convicted or declared innocent, but it's in Scots law. On appeal, and the appeal seems relatively strong with a number of unanswered questions, the verdict of 'not proven' could be given which would release the guy.
Third I don't think anyone ever really thought that this guy was behind it. Even if he had planted the bomb no-one is of the opinion that he was the man behind the decision to bomb the plane or that he was, in that sense, really responsible. So the conviction was, to some extent, symbolic. We'll jail the man who put the bomb on the plane because we can't get the guys who are really behind it/the Libyans won't give them up or whatever. The sad truth is that to some extent he was largely just a symbol of the detente between the West and Gaddafi.
He has a month or so to live, I have no problem with him living out the rest of his time in Libya because I think his conviction could have been unsound and he was a largely symbolic prisoner anyway. Though I think when someone has a terminal illness that will kill them very shortly that a degree of compassion on the part of the justice system is no bad thing. Having said that I think that he apparently had to drop his appeal is deeply unfortunate. I would have liked compassion with truth and an attempt to find answers in one of the most complicated cases in the world.
I would also add that I don't really think the American administration could have prevailed on the Scots one way or the other, because I don't think the British Prime Minister could have. The Lockerbie investigation has always been a Scottish affair run by Lord Advocates and Secretaries of State for Scotland, since devolution by Lord Advocates and Scottish Ministers of Justice. I don't think the American government could feasibly have done anything with this anymore than the British government could have much pull with the Attorney General of California (for example) when dealing with a nation state and a devolved state within a nation there's no real incentives or threats that the US could make that would be particular to Scotland, so they could only make them to the UK which has no constitutional right to interfere with Scots justice. I think if the US, beyond making phonecalls and sending letters, tried to deal directly with the Scots on this then it would piss off the British government with whom the US deals with on every other issue. I just don't think it's plausible in a situation involving a devolved state.
Actually, the "not proven" thing would be very helpful- in the US, we're bound by double jeopardy, so if a premature verdict of innocent is given, there's no recourse but to escalate the case in a superior court; a judge can dismiss a case without prejudice, but I'm not sure until what stage of the trial process they can do so. The possible "not proven" verdict closes a lot of "reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit- for example, they could have reopened the OJ Simpson case, as it was cleared strictly on reasonable doubt.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 21, 2009, 07:51:10 AM
"reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit
Trial Lawyers work to convince juries that somehow "reasonable doubt" is the same as "no doubt at all" which is absurd. They also try to convince juries that they are bound by law to decide in favor of innocence if any doubt exists...which is not only against the spirit of the law but the letter as well. Technically a jury is above the law and can decide guilt or innocence based on anything they see proper, even if most of us try to be as fair as possible.
However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".
"Not proven" is awesome. "I think you probably did it, but I don't think the government proved their case."
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".
Well it's not new in Scotland. In Scotland traditionally courts didn't judge whether someone was guilty or not guilty but whether it was proven or not proven. From there it's evolved into guilty, not guilty and not proven.
I agree it would be pointless to introduce it elsewhere and I have serious objections to it because, as I say, I think people have a right to have their name cleared if the court can't convict.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
Trial Lawyers work to convince juries that somehow "reasonable doubt" is the same as "no doubt at all" which is absurd. They also try to convince juries that they are bound by law to decide in favor of innocence if any doubt exists...which is not only against the spirit of the law but the letter as well. Technically a jury is above the law and can decide guilt or innocence based on anything they see proper, even if most of us try to be as fair as possible.
However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".
As I said, it would have its place, but only in addressing where a flimsy reasonable doubt defense was used to exploit double jeopardy. We've done without it for a bit over two hundred years, and it only patches a very specific issue, so I do think it'd be inconsequential if it were to be instituted now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 02:11:04 AM
Unrelated question, in the US is it known as the Pan Am 103 disaster?
Pan Am 103 gets some play but I've heard Lockerbie more.
Just heard on NPR that dude got a hero's welcome when he landed in Tripoli.
Britain is cancelling some trade talks as a result.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 08:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".
Well it's not new in Scotland. In Scotland traditionally courts didn't judge whether someone was guilty or not guilty but whether it was proven or not proven. From there it's evolved into guilty, not guilty and not proven.
I agree it would be pointless to introduce it elsewhere and I have serious objections to it because, as I say, I think people have a right to have their name cleared if the court can't convict.
I've had quite a few judges say in their decision "Well I think you probably did this, but it hasn't been proven BRD". I don't see how making that a formal verdict makes any difference.
A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 08:15:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:00:06 AM
However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".
Well it's not new in Scotland. In Scotland traditionally courts didn't judge whether someone was guilty or not guilty but whether it was proven or not proven. From there it's evolved into guilty, not guilty and not proven.
I agree it would be pointless to introduce it elsewhere and I have serious objections to it because, as I say, I think people have a right to have their name cleared if the court can't convict.
I've had quite a few judges say in their decision "Well I think you probably did this, but it hasn't been proven BRD". I don't see how making that a formal verdict makes any difference.
A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".
True.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".
Doesn't it declare them innocent?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".
Doesn't it declare them innocent?
No. It declares there is not sufficient proof to convict. They may or may not be innocent.
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. People may try and claim an aquittal as some kind of vindication, but that is not the intent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".
Doesn't it declare them innocent?
No. It declares them not guilty. The state couldn't prove its case.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 07:26:37 AM
Quote from: citizen k on August 21, 2009, 03:00:35 AM
I think it's more of a case of "selective compassion". :scots:
I've a number of points about this.
He has a month or so to live,
That remains to be seen. For Macaskill's sake I hope it's soon.
Quote...Though I think when someone has a terminal illness that will kill them very shortly that a degree of compassion on the part of the justice system is no bad thing.
So why doesn't it happen more often? It's selective compassion and misplaced at that.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 21, 2009, 07:51:10 AM
Actually, the "not proven" thing would be very helpful- in the US, we're bound by double jeopardy, so if a premature verdict of innocent is given, there's no recourse but to escalate the case in a superior court; a judge can dismiss a case without prejudice, but I'm not sure until what stage of the trial process they can do so. The possible "not proven" verdict closes a lot of "reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit- for example, they could have reopened the OJ Simpson case, as it was cleared strictly on reasonable doubt.
So you're suggesting that prosecutors should get to try a suspicious looking person until they get it right?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 21, 2009, 12:57:04 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 21, 2009, 07:51:10 AM
Actually, the "not proven" thing would be very helpful- in the US, we're bound by double jeopardy, so if a premature verdict of innocent is given, there's no recourse but to escalate the case in a superior court; a judge can dismiss a case without prejudice, but I'm not sure until what stage of the trial process they can do so. The possible "not proven" verdict closes a lot of "reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit- for example, they could have reopened the OJ Simpson case, as it was cleared strictly on reasonable doubt.
So you're suggesting that prosecutors should get to try a suspicious looking person until they get it right?
Yeah, I'm not quite sure where he's coming from, or why he wants to get around double jeopardy.
Getting rid of double jeopardy would be a great blow to the rights of US citizens.
Quote from: citizen k on August 21, 2009, 12:05:45 PM
That remains to be seen. For Macaskill's sake I hope it's soon.
Well it could turn out otherwise though I don't know why doctors in the Scottish prison system would lie about his inoperable prostate cancer.
QuoteSo why doesn't it happen more often? It's selective compassion and misplaced at that.
It is selective. I think MacAskill made an error in his reiteration of Scottish 'values' because in Scotland lots of prisoners die while serving their sentences. Personally I'd have no problem with prisoners with just a few months or weeks left to live being released if they had family who wanted them. I don't think anything is gained by someone dying in prison and I think by that point the penalty has been imposed and served.
Having said that, the reasons I gave earlier make me think it is okay to be selective in this case. I dislike the idea of a man who could have suffered a miscarriage of justice and who is, even if guilty, a largely symbolic prisoner not being given compassion or mercy by the justice system.
QuoteNo. It declares there is not sufficient proof to convict. They may or may not be innocent.
But surely that would mean if you're arrested and go to trial for something and are acquitted, that in the eyes of the law you're still not not guilty. That just seems perverse.
QuoteYeah, I'm not quite sure where he's coming from, or why he wants to get around double jeopardy.
In Scotland I think they only have it for 'not guilty', if the case is 'not proven' it can be retried and in England cases can be retried if significant new evidence comes to light.
FWIW the dude looked like he was ready to croak stepping off the plane.
QuoteScots law is now 'laughing stock of the world'
Published Date: 21 August 2009
By David Maddox and Tom Peterkin
US PRESIDENT Barack Obama last night demanded that Libya put the Lockerbie bomber under house arrest as anger at his release grew in the United States.
In a radio interview, the president said the US administration had been in contact with the Scottish Government to register its objection to the move, which Mr Obama called "a mistake".
His comments came as concern grows about the effect the decision to free the one man convicted of murdering 270 people on 21 December, 1988, will have on Scotland's relations with the US. CBI Scotland has raised fears about an impact on trade and tourism and US politicians have joined American relatives in condemning justice secretary Kenny MacAskill who made the decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Stephanie Bernstein, the widow of Michael Bernstein, a prosecutor who tracked down Nazi war criminals, said: "He is flying back to Tripoli on Gaddafi's private plane. He is going to be greeted like a hero by Gaddafi.
"MacAskill talks about showing compassion and mercy. This is weakness. This is how it will be seen by Gaddafi. This is how it will be played within Libya and this is how it will be seen by every single person that wants to do harm to people all over the world."
Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora was one of many students killed on the flight, said: "I think this has been despicable. He was convicted of mass murder, but you've let him out on the most sickening grounds possible. Shame on Scotland. We were told about this proud little country, but you are still in the grip of the British Empire."
She warned that the pictures of Megrahi leaving Scotland would be remembered forever.
The issue has once again highlighted the divide between the British and American relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing.
British relatives, most of whom believe Megrahi is innocent, welcomed the decision to release him. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on Pan Am Flight 103, said: "I don't believe for a moment that this man was involved in the way that he was found to have been involved."
But Dr Swire reiterated his regret that Megrahi's appeal against his conviction had been dropped. "I feel despondent that the West and Scotland didn't have the guts to allow this man's second appeal to continue, because I am convinced had they done so, it would have overturned the verdict against him."
However, there was anger from Lockerbie over Megrahi's release. The self-styled "Baby of Lockerbie" described the decision as "quite disgusting".
Aimee Guthrie was born within an hour of the disaster to a couple who ran a hotel in the Borders town. Now approaching her 21st birthday, she said she would have preferred it if Megrahi had been left to die in jail.
There was also a fierce debate over how Mr MacAskill's decision had affected the reputation of Scotland's legal system. Despite his claims to support the original verdict on Megrahi's guilt, some claimed the justice secretary had caved in to those who said that Scottish judges, police and prosecutors had got it wrong. Leading QC Paul McBride said: "This has left the Scottish justice system a laughing stock in the world." He said it is the first time a convicted criminal had been allowed to return to his country of origin. "I have dealt with these cases for foreign nationals and they have always been sent to a home or hospice in Scotland," he said.
But Scottish Law Society president Ian Smart said the decision had upheld the reputation of the legal profession. He said the doubts were only over evidence, not process.
Retired judge Lord McCluskey said: "There is no reason for us not to show compassion – apart from revenge, which isn't the sweetest of virtues."
In Libya, Youssef Sawani, director of the Gaddafi International Charity, said: "It shows justice can be done and that the issue is not one of revenge."
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 02:11:04 AM
Unrelated question, in the US is it known as the Pan Am 103 disaster?
At least in Canada it's always been called 'The Lockerbie Bombing'.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 12:56:56 PM
QuoteScottish officials said the former Libyan intelligence officer's prostate cancer was advancing and that they were bound by Scottish values to release him.
Scottish values do not include justice it seems.
Drunkeness, idiocy and damning England while being totally dependent on handouts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 01:53:03 PM
QuoteNo. It declares there is not sufficient proof to convict. They may or may not be innocent.
But surely that would mean if you're arrested and go to trial for something and are acquitted, that in the eyes of the law you're still not not guilty. That just seems perverse.
It's simply a byproduct of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". The accused don't have to prove their innocence; rather, the state has to prove their guilt. If the state doesn't prove its case, the accused are found not guilty, but that doesn't mean that they didn't commit the crime, merely that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did.
In the eyes of the courts, it does mean that they are considered to be innocent.
This is blowing up to be something of a scandal. The Scottish parliament is being recalled to discuss the matter :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8216897.stm
Meanwhile the national press is speculating that Brown or Mandelson have been doing shady deals with Libya.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208530/Libya-After-Lockerbie-bombers-release-heats-Mandy-hes-forced-deny-deal-Gaddafi.html
IMO Brown/Mandelson have probably been making deals with Libya, meanwhile they have managed to allow the opprobrium to fall on the ScotNats, who have been shown up as silly buggers. Brown can't run the bloody country properly but he's pretty good at the political infighting; it's no accident that Private Eye's spoof of him as Stalin2 works so well.
Another link, this time to the Telgraph :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6076926/Lockerbie-bomber-release-pressure-mounting-on-Gordon-Brown.html
(edit : Brown is a unionist of course, so humiliating the ScotsNats is useful from his pov).
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 24, 2009, 12:48:40 AM
Meanwhile the national press is speculating that Brown or Mandelson have been doing shady deals with Libya.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208530/Libya-After-Lockerbie-bombers-release-heats-Mandy-hes-forced-deny-deal-Gaddafi.html
IMO Brown/Mandelson have probably been making deals with Libya, meanwhile they have managed to allow the opprobrium to fall on the ScotNats, who have been shown up as silly buggers.
I just don't buy that Kenny MacAskill is going to do Westminster's bidding on this without shouting about it from the rooftops.
Sadly in Scotland the argument's divided along partisan lines so far as I can see. The SNP vs the rest.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.
Compassion? We're talking about the SCOTS here, for deity's sake. It's cheaper to give him a plane ticket than pay for medical care for a dying man.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.
Compassion? We're talking about the SCOTS here, for deity's sake. It's cheaper to give him a plane ticket than pay for medical care for a dying man.
:D
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.
Compassion? We're talking about the SCOTS here, for deity's sake. It's cheaper to give him a plane ticket than pay for medical care for a dying man.
:lol:
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.
Compassion? We're talking about the SCOTS here, for deity's sake. It's cheaper to give him a plane ticket than pay for medical care for a dying man.
Those are the old Scots. The new Scots are something different.
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2009, 07:47:59 AM
Those are the old Scots. The new Scots are something different.
You obviously haven't met my relatives.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2009, 11:47:12 AM
No. It declares there is not sufficient proof to convict. They may or may not be innocent.
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. People may try and claim an aquittal as some kind of vindication, but that is not the intent.
Agreed. I singled out double jeopardy because if a prosecutor makes his best case, but it falls through on one little thing, the
court is convinced he's innocent, and all the evidence that could have made the case can never be used again under double jeopardy rules (plus the massive burden of new evidence required simply to pass double jeopardy). Since the judge would be the only one who can decide to dismiss it without prejudice, it could create the appearance of judicial bias, and defense would almost certainly move for a mistrial when it was revisited.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 24, 2009, 08:31:44 AM
Agreed. I singled out double jeopardy because if a prosecutor makes his best case, but it falls through on one little thing, the court is convinced he's innocent, and all the evidence that could have made the case can never be used again under double jeopardy rules (plus the massive burden of new evidence required simply to pass double jeopardy). Since the judge would be the only one who can decide to dismiss it without prejudice, it could create the appearance of judicial bias, and defense would almost certainly move for a mistrial when it was revisited.
And society has decided it's better for a few guilty people to go free for this reason than for the government to be able to keep a person on trial indefinitely.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 21, 2009, 08:50:52 AM
As I said, it would have its place, but only in addressing where a flimsy reasonable doubt defense was used to exploit double jeopardy.
This is a bit of a strawman - OJ nothwithstanding, the cases in which a plainly guilty person gets off because some hot shot defense lawyer mesmerizes a jury with a "flimsy reasonable doubt defense" are slightly more common than valid unicorn sightings, but not much. Most defense lawyers would probably tell you they avoid closing with a big emphasis on "reasonable doubt" where feasible b/c it is a signal to the jury your guy is guilty. Certainly conviction rates for most US prosecutorial offices do not give the impression that this is anywhere near a rampant problem.
And when I think of the word "exploit" used in relation to double jeopardy, it is in connection with the various dodges used by the government to get around it (eg having a different sovereign charge the same substantive conduct). Not in connection with its appropriate use by a defendant as a constitutional bar as intended.
Quote from: Armyknife on August 24, 2009, 05:06:30 PM
Leaving aside the crime, the verdict and punishment of this man, the Scotish AG's (Pros.Fis. ?) 20-25 minutes of windbaggery explaining, what he clearly thought was a solomonic decision was appalling. With politicians like this the Scots are buggered, especially if they choose 'independence.'
That's nothing new - it was Scottish politicians that ended "independence" in the first place, by buggering up everything. :lol:
They are the original "parcel of rogues".
Quote
1.
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory!
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name.
Sae famed in martial story!
Now Sark rins over Salway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
2.
What force or guile could not subdue
Thro' many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
3.
O, would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour
I'll mak this declaration :-
'We're bought and sold for English gold'--
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 08:23:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2009, 07:47:59 AM
Those are the old Scots. The new Scots are something different.
You obviously haven't met my relatives.
I love your avatar.
About fucking time, pal. And still fuck you Scotland and your Euroweenie sympathizers.
QuoteLockerbie bomber al-Megrahi dies in Libya after long battle with cancer
By NBC News, msnbc.com and news services
Updated at 3:30 p.m. ET: TRIPOLI - The former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people has died, his son told NBC News on Sunday. He was 60.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi died at home after his health quickly deteriorated. "He has been suffering from cancer for a long time and God choose him," Khalid al-Magrahi told NBC.
"He was too sick to utter anything on his death bed," his brother Abdel Hakim told Reuters. "Just because Abdel Baset is dead doesn't mean the past is now erased. We will always tell the world that my brother was innocent.''
Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 as it flew to New York from London. All 259 people aboard the airliner were killed and 11 others on the ground in the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, died from falling wreckage.
Scotland freed him in 2009 on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from advanced terminal prostate cancer and thought to have months to live.
His release angered many relatives of the victims, 189 of whom were American, and the Obama administration criticized the decision.
Many speculated that a backdoor deal had been cut between the former regime of Moammar Gadhafi and the British government. With the fall of the Gadhafi regime in 2011, many in the U.S. and U.K. called on the new Libyan leaders to extradite Megrahi to serve out the remainder of his prison term, something Libya's ruling National Transitional Council refused to do.
Al-Megrahi, who served as an intelligence agent during the rule of Gadhafi, denied any role in suspected human rights abuses in his home country before Gadhafi's fall and death in a popular uprising last year.
In April, al-Megrahi's condition worsened and he was taken to a private hospital to receive a transfusion of eleven liters of blood, but subsequently felt strong enough to return home.
Megrahi's older brother, Mohamed, said the funeral will be after the noon prayer on Monday. He will be buried in Al Zagawani cemetary in Janzour, 12 miles west of Tripoli. Megrahi's house was filled Sunday with family members, relatives and neighbors paying condolences, NBC News reported.
The White House said that the death would not end the quest for justice for the families of the 270 people killed.
"Megrahi's death concludes an unfortunate chapter following his release from prison in 2009 on medical grounds - a move we strongly opposed,'' said White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.
"We want to see justice for the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and their families. We will continue working with our new partners in Libya toward a full accounting of Gadhafi's horrific acts,'' Vietor said.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer on Sunday criticized the Scottish government for allowing al-Megrahi to die a free man in what he said "smelled of a deal for oil.''
Schumer, a New York Democrat, said on CNN that the death of al-Megrahi meant the full truth about the Pan Am bombing may never be known.
"Both the Scottish and British governments have not been forthcoming,'' Schumer said. "The whole deal smelled of a deal for oil for this man's freedom and that was almost blasphemy given what a horrible person he was and the terrible destruction and tragedy that he caused. I don't know if we'll ever get to the bottom of it now.''
British Prime Minister David Cameron, who was in opposition when al-Megrahi was freed, said in Chicago, where he was attending the NATO summit: "I've always been clear he should never have been released from prison.
''Today is a day to remember the 270 people who lost their lives in what was an appalling terrorist act. Our thoughts should be with them and their families for the suffering they've had."
Jim Swire, the father of one of the British Lockerbie victims, said he was convinced al-Megrahi was innocent.
''I've been satisfied for some years that this man had nothing to do with the murder of my daughter and I grit my teeth every time I hear newscasters say 'Lockerbie bomber has died,'" he told BBC News television. ''This is a sad day."
Having re-read this so nicely re-animated thread, my only thought is that I'd like to get me some Scottish values. :perv:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2012, 05:14:50 PM
About fucking time, pal. And still fuck you Scotland and your Euroweenie sympathizers.
QuoteLockerbie bomber al-Megrahi dies in Libya after long battle with cancer
Bet he didn't think he'd out live Gaddafi. The new Libyan government missed a golden opportunity. The US would have been willing to pay a high price for him. Loans, military aid, trade deals. The guy was worth a lot.