Ok, he's been released. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was tried, convicted and sent to jail.
Under Scottish law there is a provision to release a prisoner on Compassionate Grounds.

First, I'm entirely in agreement that he was released - and not just because it was lawful to do so.
Second, I'm really pissed off that he dropped his appeal. The appeal MAY have compelled the UK government to release evidence that it withheld at his trial.

However, water under the bridge and we'll never know the truth. (sighs of relief from governments on both sides of the Atlantic.)

So, many high ranking officials, including Obama, are outraged. It would seem they would like to change Scottish law!
I know most of us criticise America for killing some of their prisoners, but I don't recall any of our high ranking officials or Prime Ministers criticising the American justice system.

What particularly irks me is the mileage that local politicians are trying to make. Comments that suggest Scotland is a laughing stock or that we have jeopardised our standing in the world or that no one will buy Scottish products, are ludicrous. As ludicrous as suggesting that, because America doesn't like our system of government, we'll get invaded. Our government will be changed and our oil will foot the bill.
Now where has that happened before?

Will this increase the likelihood of terrorist activity in the world? Of course not.

You might like to read this BBC article.

quote:

Will this increase the likelihood of terrorist activity in the world? Of course not.

If the guy is one of these suicide bombers then he could possibly commit one final act of terrorisim. I think they should have given him thirty days in the electric chair if he was in fact guilty.

The Scottish has its own laws indeed, but we have our own opinions; which, often does not agree to the laws of another nation.

I personally agree with Phantom_Delta, because those who died by the bomb he planted did not have a chance to see their family before their deaths.

He was found guilty and shall remain that way until evident shows otherwise. Give him the chair for 30 days. I will not weep for him, but pity the soul in him for the act of violence he once committed.

If he does commit one more act, then we shall hold Scottish law accountable for his actions.

quote:

If the guy is one of these suicide bombers then he could possibly commit one final act of terrorisim. I think they should have given him thirty days in the electric chair if he was in fact guilty.

If.
There was so much doubt surrounding his trial that he should never have been sentenced.
There were so many irregularities in the provision, detection and withholding of evidence that the trial should never have taken place.

The man has returned to his wife and kids and will live for about another three months, according to a number of medical consultants.

Again, it is staggering that he dropped his appeal just before he was released.
The cynics might say that, in order to spend his last three months with his family, he agreed a secret deal to drop the appeal. An appeal that could have thrown light on a sordid and machiavellian conspiracy that implicated the CIA.
This and
this

This is also interesting - especially the video - but it wrongly states that a condition of his release was his dropping the appeal. That has been denied, officially.
(Behind the scenes - who knows?)

I wish to add my comments on this case, and I would certainly support the stance taken by ASA.

I have often felt that those behind the downing of Pan Am 103 were the Iranians and not the Libyans, although I freely admit this is only my opinion.

Medical opinion seems to be that this man only has a very short time to live, but also that what appears to be his last 3 months, could easily be his last 7 months, as I don't think there is any way to be precise about the time element he has left.

There are many unanswered questions, some of which we may never know, surrounding the trial of this man. I am looking forward to the publication of Dr. Jim Swire's book which will be this year, and I have ordered, in advance, a copy of this. The reasons for the book's publication being delayed in my opinion, can only be that perhaps Dr. Swire and his co-author Peter Biddulf were waiting to see the result of any further appeal, or release on compassionate grounds.

Dr. Swire lost his daughter Flora on that flight, and has been at the forefront seeking justice all these years despite having attended the trial, he has often stated that he did not think Megrahi is guilty. I have often wondered if he was used as a scapegoat, and if he is guilty I certainly do not think he acted alone.

I have so many searching questions of my own in regard to this matter.

Some of you may know that I am a retired Air Traffic Controller who was on duty the night Pan Am 103 was blasted out of the skies above Lockerbie, I remember that evening and the events that followed on my own shift so very well indeed, and I shall not dwell on them here.

Suffice to say, those events have remained with me vividly to this day. I have visited the Memorial Garden at Lockerbie a number of times. The people of Lockerbie keep that place so well tended, it is a very sad and sombre place. When you enter the Garden and see all the memorials it will bring tears to the hardest heart and eyes.

But, whilst I'm a huge admirer of our Scottish Judicial System and also know a great deal about it from the writer's and researcher's viewpoint on the many articles I have written on Scottish Criminal Law over the years, I think we made a mistake in this case. No matter where you live in the world we all know that an innocent man or woman has occasionally been found guilty and sentenced for a crime they did not commit - there is nothing new in this.

I would add that if this man is innocent of all charges, despite having been found guilty in a court of law, then he should most certainly have been released on compassionate grounds.

If, on the other hand he is guilty, I think he should have remained incarcerated until his eventual death. He could have received wonderful care of a palliative kind, but not in one of our hospices (here I totally agree with the Scottish Government's stance on that aspect), where he could have had his wife and family close to him, which would have been the humane thing in my opinion. It has already been stated that the palliative care he would have received here would be far greater than that he will receive now that he is back in Libya - even he agreed with that some months ago.

It will be interesting to see what now unfolds.

"Comments that suggest Scotland is a laughing stock or that we have jeopardised our standing in the world..."

Ain't no-one suggesting anything, Mr. Liberal; your country's always been a laughing stock. This non-decision just makes a few extra million people aware of the fact.
Judicial decision? Yeah, right!
Compassionate grounds? "**** you, victims' relatives near-enough-united", more like.
Miscarriage of justice? A re-trial for a "convicted mass-murderer" would - and correct me if I'm wrong - normally not involve the "convicted mass-murderer" being released while awaiting said re-trial.

A total ****ing joke, and Scotland's reputation lies, along side Alex 'buy me a drink' Salmonella's, in the gutter.

If its plummet to the ground had taken it straight down the chimney of your house, Asa, while you were off down the pub for a pint, and the wife and kiddies'd been sat at home watching the latest episode of A'roamin' In The Gloamin on tv, you think you'd still be pretending to have a higher moral standing than the majority of REAL victims' relatives? They don't agree with the decision of your nasty little pretend-government. But then, you never did give much of a toss what innocent victims or their loved-ones thought, did you.

What's more interesting than Scottish outrage, is Libyan under-rage.

Libya happily admitted that the murderous, vengeful act of blowing up 270 innocents (along with the 4 or 5 CIA officials based in Libya that were on board that flight), was the work of Libyan operatives. If anyone knows who actually did it, it's the Libyan government. If it wasn't Megrahi they are being pretty mean not actually handing over the guy who did do it.

There was notably a very underated welcome home for Megrahi which says much of what the man actually represents to his Libyan government. Why aren't we outraged over this act of horrible Libyan betrayal of their supposedly innocent countryman? Shouldn't they moreso than we... be crusading for their supposedly innocent brother. Isn't that curious.

No doubt the Scots decision is driven by the deluded assumption that this act of 'compassion' will soften the hearts of Islamic fundamentalism. ppppffftttt.

Fundamentalism exists in all religions. Why is it noticed only in that one then? hrumpppph.

************************************************************************************

A characteristic of religious fundamentalism is to perceive the world as an arena of continuous battle and to nourish it with anger and the desire for revenge.
-- Ilter Turkemen

************************************************************************************

-

much love, light and laughter,
ananya.

Please give an example of, say, a Christian suicide bomber blowing himself/herself apart, in the name of his/her religion, taking with him/her as many civilians (if said civilians happen to be Muslims, they died, apparently, as martyrs. Talk about blind faith) as possible. Fundamentally (not that there is anything fundamental about fundamental Islamists, since they go against, not with, the Quoran, thereby being simply complete anti-Islamists and utter wankers), these 'people' have no moral compass and there is no comparison to be made between 'them' and any other religious group. As far as I am aware, I am not a target deserving of extermination - alongside approximately ninety nine percent of the world's population - from the direction of Chritianity or Judaism. I may be an atheist, but I don't believe Jesus said: "Go destroy the world with an airliner." Thing is, Mohammed didn't say: "The best of the houses is the house that has been destroyed by a hijacked 747" either. Though I may be wrong.
Which leaves 'fundamentalist Islamists' both utterly devoid of any true Islamist ideology and without comparison in any other religion.
Could've phrased it a little better, but I'm sure you get the drift of the argument: you're talking bollocks.

Let me put it this way: In two days' time I leave a country made up of mostly Buddhists and head for a country where the religious make-up is headed, numerically, at least (for now, at least, too), by Christians. Yet it is only Islam that poses a threat to my getting home. You get the picture now?

George Tiller, Afenton.

Eric Rudolph as well. Of course, in the Third World Christian terrorists are more motivated because they're surrounded by the effects of poverty and perceive their fundamentalism as a solution, like NLFT in India or the Lord's Resistance in Uganda. Let us not forget, either, the deeds of the KKK.

'Against the Quran'? No more that the KKK go 'against the Bible'. These texts are totally open to their barbaric interpretations. It just happens that healthy, wealthy theists are gradually aligning their interpretations with Humanism, unfortunately retaining their mysticism.

quote:

Christian suicide bomber

Loula Abboud

Ichizo Hayashi.

Also the 2002 Soweto Bombings.

***

A mention however must be made of Afenton's post (the one asking for a christian suicide bomber to be named) I was pleasantly surprised with the tone of its language which was - for the first time ever - the most circumspect and respectful post, uncluttered with any abuse aimed at the opposite person. Thank you. Its nice to know you can write otherwise.

***

Back home, a case is pending against a hindu religious extremist faction for camouflaging a bombing in a predominantly muslim village, and making it appear as if the muslims are the only ones who weild the bombs. The Hindu Nun (Sadhvi) languishes in jail at present.

**************************************************************************

But the thing that I saw in your face no power can disinherit: No bomb that ever burst shatters the crystal spirit.
-- George Orwell.

**************************************************************************

-

much love, light and laughter,
ananya.

George Tiller was a "suicide bomber", was he? And he wanted to take "as many innocent civilians (with him) as possible", did he?
And Eric Rudolph was, Fuzzies suggests, not only a suicide bomber who, while blowing himself into heaven, wanted to take as many civilians with him, but he was also motivated by religion, not race. Ok, Fuzzies - nice post!
Hayashi was a kamikaze; she did not try to take the lives of "innocent civilians", nor was it motivated by religion - unless you suggest she did it because she believed the emperor was a god. I'm sure you are not so desperate to save the face of Islam by suggesting such a ridiculous thing.
The Soweto bombings?

So, despite the request being for examples of religiously motivated suicide bombers wanting to kill as many innocent civilians with them, we have (and it isn't hard to see the desperation involved in the Googling involved), instead, the names of various individuals with either no religious connection, or extremists who either did or did not target innocents!
Such is the level of debate. And all, it appears, in defense of the only genuine threat to any of the individuals who dared to suggest that Islam is not the only genuine threat to them.

And Asa still hasn't even made a comment about why he believes that a "convicted mass-murderer" should be released, simply (not that this case is in the least simple) because he's dying. Hell, the guy believes he's going to Heaven, anyway. Nor has he, or anyone else, made even a half-hearted defense of the Scottish non-government.

A slap in many faces and a defense of Islam. That's all.

No, Tiller was the victim. And that required no googling, that was actually kind of a big thing here in the states.

But, besides not even bothering to figure out what I was talking about before responding, what I see here is not even an argument. How do I respond to this? You simply repeated what we said in the form of a query and then proceeded to latch onto a very narrow definition of terrorism. Of course, we could continue that forever. Hell we could find someone who did the same thing, but no! he was wearing a blue shirt, it's not the same. There's no argument here.

quote:

And Eric Rudolph was, Fuzzies suggests, not only a suicide bomber who, while blowing himself into heaven, wanted to take as many civilians with him, but he was also motivated by religion, not race. Ok, Fuzzies - nice post!

Suicide bombings are not the only forms of terrorism. Rudolph's racism was founded in Biblical belief, Andrew. That's abundantly clear by his connections and his statements.

I'll echo Agent120's comment and as for the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, it was provided for under Scottish law. I thought that was understood.

In question is why he dropped his appeal just before his legal release. An appeal that would have brought into the public domain some very embarrassing facts that had been witheld by the prosecution. Embarrassing to American and British governments.

Wow! What a bunch of thickies. I ask for "(A)n example of, say, a Christian suicide bomber blowing himself/herself apart, in the name of his/her religion, taking with him/her as many civilians." And when you lot of thickies come back with nothing of the sort, it's me "not even bothering to figure out what I was talking about before responding"!
I'll tell you what, small agent person, you seriously need to try reading with more than one blind eye and a banana stuck up your ass.

Fuzzies, more or less the same goes for you. No-one said suicide bombings were the only form of terrorism. Therefore, another fine post.
Asa yet again doesn't even bother to respond to the question. But he never does. Talk about the blind leading the blind! No-one's said that the stoopid Stottish non-government released this mass-murderer without the backing of the law. So, yes, it WAS understood. Now, if only you could understand even anything at all, we could actually move forward. Now very likely, I must admit - what with so many loons on the forum.
"Embarrassing to American and British governments."
Hah! The only country actually embarrassed is the Scottish (non)one. Don't lay the blame anywhere but where it belongs: North of the frigging border!