I have to agree with you there Andrew. Scotland has been a laughing stock since 2001. I'm embarrassed to the soles of my shoes that three Scottish judges found Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi guilty.

Apart from the fact that chief prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, was paid at least $2m for his testimony.
"...vital documents, which emanated from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and related to the Mebo timer that allegedly detonated the Lockerbie bomb, were withheld from the trial defence team.
"Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya.
"Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore an affidavit in July 2007 that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to "a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case""

Yes, it is embarrassing.

Ok, so now tell us why you believe that a convicted mass-murderer should be released early. I'm of two minds as to Megrahi's role in the bombing, if any at all. But the fact remains that he has not been re-tried and found not guilty. The fact that he's dying makes no difference to me, as far as letting him go home goes. It may be a bummer, if he had no part whatsoever in the bombing (highly unlikely), but convicted killers are never allowed freedom 'til a re-trial.
As far as the release is concerned, there is no-one to blame but the Scottish government, and if (almost certainly) this is all part of a deal, overseen by Blair et al, that still leaves Scotland's semi-autonomous government with the final say on his release.

I believe this particular convicted mass-murderer should have been released because the conviction was unsound.
He was released under a convenient aspect of Scottish law that allowed for such a release. Convenient, because it halted the second appeal.

If the Scottish government acted under no pressure from any other government or agency then I applaud them. They applied the law.

However, it really looks a bit too neat that Megrahi's appeal was dropped immediately before his release - not afterwards. It is almost impossible to accept that it is all just a fabulous coincidence.
As I said before, the appeal might have brought into the public domain evidence that there was either no evidence or fabricated evidence. The fabrication of evidence by the Americans was not something that could be allowed to be known - obviously.
Worse, if the judges at Camp Zeist knew that evidence had been witheld from the defence, for example, the breach of security at Heathrow, where does that leave them? Even in Scottish law, all evidence MUST be available to both sides.

So, if the Scottish government is playing ball with the judiciary, with England or with America, then I agree that they are a laughing stock. Sadly, that is the more likely position than their applying Scottish law with no fear or favour.

Not doubting any of that; what I want to know is why you suggest that this case is special. There are many instances, in Britain, at this very moment - one that springs to mind is the guy who's in prison for murdering his pregnant wife, many years ago - but he shouldn't be released pending a re-trial; or no re-trial, in the case of Megrahi. Maybe speeded up, but not freed from prison. Justice can't work like that.

It's special for a couple of reasons. I think Scottish law is unique in that there is provision for early release on compassionate grounds. I may be wrong, but I think that is what the brouhaha has been about. Also, I cannot remember when this has ever happened before.

Second reason is personal. I drove past and was diverted around Lockerbie just a few hours after the 'plane came down. At the time we had no idea what had happened. One of my close friends, a policeman at the time, was sent down to the area. I have since met a number of other people who were involved at the scene immediately afterwards.

Although I know people who have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and earlier in the Falklands and who have seen sights that are as bad or worse, this is in Scotland. Maybe that shouldn't mean it's any more special, but that's just the way it is.

Well, I'll gladly read with both eyes, but I rather think I'd like to keep the banana right where it is.

And what's with the insults anyway? "Small?" You are literally belittling me.

I like that you've recognized that there are more forms of terrorism than just suicide bombings, but why are you so insistent upon finding other examples of just suicide bombings then? What does it matter if it's a shooting or a suicide bombing, the intention and the effect(albeit one to a different degree, I'll admit) are the same.

So, I guess that my primary question is: Why are you asking 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?" What is your point?

I'm not aware, Asa, of a case where a convicted mass-murderer (Yes, I like to repeat phrases) was freed from prison to appeal against his or her conviction, and was supported in his or her case by someone citing 'personal' reasons, as you describe. Sorry if this sounds crude, but you sound like someone making a claim to (in)fame. I fail to see how your having been diverted from your journey is a justifiable reason for setting a convicted mass-murderer free.
Close to (your) home? Of course. But isn't that how terrorism MUST be viewed - as though it weren't someone else's problem - is actually a problem for society as a whole? Why d'you think I always make it personal - mentioning your family or your home city or airport? We're all targets. It could've been your children or mine on the 'plane; could've been your city or my town. The 'plane's flight path was almost directly over Blackburn, so it is hardly stretching the imagination to see the plummeting aircraft ending the lives of my children, not the lives of those in Lockerbie.
To me, it is almost incidental whose lives are potentially ended. If there's anything my government can do to prevent terrorism - Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo - they have my blessing. This is a war, not a game or a cause for claims of liberalism.

Small agent, please re-insert banana. If something so obvious needs explaining, there IS no point to your taking part.

I'll paraphrase myself:
Special in Scottish law.
Special to me and not because I was diverted.

The former is, as far as I know, unique to any justice system in the world. It really cannot get any more special than that.

The latter is, quite obviously, of no consequence to anyone else in the world and has absolutely nothing to do with Megrahi's release.

The banana is firmly in place. Now, would you be so kind as to tell me why without dodging my question?

I mean, I'll gladly admit I'm a fool if you'll just give me an answer. Cause that's the whole point of this debate thing we do isn't it? You know, trying to help each other understand? Or is it?

In the Scottish Judicial system, all prisoners irrespective of sentence length, or when they were sentenced, are eligible to be considered for early release on compassionate grounds, under provisions of Section 3 of the Prisoners & criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 which empowers Scottish ministers to do so.

Any such decision is taken by the Ministers, who are advised by Parole & Life Sentence Review Division (PLSRD) of the Scottish Executive Justice Department. Therefore all such requests for early release must be submitted to that division.

Early release on compassionate grounds may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than 3 months may be considered an appropriate period. Medical opinions will be sought in this regard.

Early release can also be considered where a prisoner is bedridden (confined to their room, wheelchair or otherwise) or severely incapacitated. Consideration would also be given to any case in which the prisoner's further imprisonment would, in the light of the conditions in which he/she is being held, endanger or shorten his/her life expectancy.

I mention this because I have noticed that there is a misconception among those who have little or no knowledge of our legal system, on several discussion boards, when stating that special rules were applied in Mr. Megrahi's case, and therefore "why do these 'rules' not apply to others?" seems to be the call.

I think I have answered adequately.

I would also point out that similar rules apply in English Law under section 30 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 1997.

Both countries have also short-term compassionate leave for prisoners, and in England between 1 December 2002 and 30 November 2004, 1,273 licences were granted on compassionate grounds for offenders serving sentences for murder. Thus, on the published facts of Megrahi’s case, had the Scottish Government refused to allow compassionate release in terms of a policy which had been applied by it and its Lib-Lab predecessors, and before them by Labour and Conservative Secretaries of State alike, it would have been open to legal challenge with excellent prospects of success.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mrs. Micawber,

That is interesting.
Just shows how I should have done the research.

Perhaps because there has been such a 'to do' in the media and that there has been little or no mention of any other cases of early release on compassionate grounds, that I assumed that Scotland is unique.

Asa, I am glad you found my post interesting, and in a sense you are right, because in many respects Scottish Law is different from others, and there's no need for me to go into all of the differences for the purposes of this thread. But, what I really hoped to do with this post, was to point out that Kenny McAskill had to take a lot of things into consideration, and consult with others. He may have had many hours in consultation and deliberation before deciding that Mr. Megrahi fell into the category (just as any other prisoner) in having considerations for compassionate release. I am sure that to a degree he would have known the decision would be controversial.

I recall thinking that there were plenty of ministers at Holyrood during its special sitting, making political point scoring during his appearance before them to explain his reasons, and actions. I thought some of them sad individuals indeed, whom I had previously admired, and I include Annabel Goldie, Leader of the Scottish Conservatives amongst them. I thought it pitiful that she could even suggest Mr. Megrahi could have entered a hospice. I have extensive experience of the Hospice movement, and believe me; anyone with any knowledge of them through direct involvement would never have suggested this as a suitable place for such a high profile man.

I have always respected Annabel, but it showed me how so out of touch this woman is. However, she is not alone.

What's all this 'special Scotland' crap? How, precisely, is this case either unique or special to Scotland? And what's so ridiculous about this "convicted mass-murderer" being moved to a hospice? I see: Scotland is special and different in that it alone has a clause in its legal system that allows a convicted mass-murder to be granted an almost total reversal of his or her sentence to life inprisonment to a first class trip back home to a heroes' welcome, rather than be moved to an hospice, at the expense of the tax-payers of the country that was partly the intended target of this "mass-murderer". And here's me thinking that allowing a "convicted mass-murder" to be permitted to be flown home as a hero is somehow an abhorrent act. How stupid of me. And how naive. I now see that it's only fair, now that it's been pointed out to me, that this "convicted mass-murder" should be treated to what at first seemed 'special treatment' (not of the Nazi 'special treatment' variety, as denied by most of the terrorist (islamic) world, including the lunatic Gadhafi - he of the "Lockerbie connection") - deserving of a first-class ticket back home to the bosom of Libya, and to the heroe's welcome so deserving of this national hero.

Seems like the only anti-hero in Scotland - Land of the Gullible, and Home to the Soon to be Free Libyan - is suddenly a Conservative, who happens to offer what most of us see as an almost equally Liberal option of moving this piece of filth (unless proven, in a re-trial, to be not actually a piece of filth) to a hospice, where his every whim will be granted (unlike in Libyan hospices, where 'special treatment' probaly includes a 'putting one out of one's misery' clause). Stupid Bitch, that Goldie.
Mr and Mrs Asa Micawber seem to be in absolute agreement that nothing but the unique Scottish legal system was employed in this act of despicable 'forgiveness'. Sorry if I fail to see the bleedin' obvious.

p.s.
I suggest that if one is merely going to look up on the the internet what the definition of a term means, than that person should provide links, and not 'suggest' that they are simply his or HER own words.

BBC:
"Early release on compassionate grounds may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon."

Mrs. Micawber:
"Early release on compassionate grounds may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon."

BBC:
"Early release may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no set time limits, but three months may be considered to be an appropriate period".

Mrs. Micawber:
Early release on compassionate grounds may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than 3 months may be considered an appropriate period."

I s'pose that your failure to add quotation marks is due to the massive difference between your own words and those of the BBC or www.jonathanmitchell.info .
Bloody cheek! I s'pose we're supposed to wonder at your brilliance, yes?
Bloody cheek.
And therefore your "I mention this because I have noticed that there is a misconception among those who have little or no knowledge of our legal system" includes you, yes? And here was you, Mrs Micawber, knowing all this all along! No need for the BBC or www.JonathanMitchell.com - just ask Mrs. Micawber!
Mrs. Micawber:
"Asa, I am glad you found my post interesting..."
Naturally, this should read: "Asa, I'm glad you found my copy and paste-job interesting..."!
Maybe we should just call you Mrs. Sentrawoods.

As another matter of interest I seem to remember that the cost of housing Megrahi in a hospice would have included 48 permanent police officers: at least £100,000 a month. Probably considered to be too expensive.

quote:

Mr and Mrs Asa Micawber seem to be in absolute agreement that nothing but the unique Scottish legal system was employed in this act of despicable 'forgiveness'. Sorry if I fail to see the bleedin' obvious.

I think you have already forgotten my previous posts, chosen to ignore them or utterly misunderstood. Pity, we were so close to agreeing on something.

Your saying "That is interesting. Just shows how I should have done the research" suggested, to me at least, that Mrs. Micawber had somehow enlightened you, and therefore you'd been somehow ignorant previously. Is that not the case? Are you of the same opinion now? I'm confused as to your actual stance on this case. Perhaps Jonathan Mitchell may be of assistance. What say you (BBC), Mrs. Micawber?

As for the cost - it was only for a few months. Besides, what's a few hundred grand?

I have been enlightened because, as I said before, I thought release on compassionate grounds was unique to Scotland.

My stance is unchanged. Whether Scottish politicians were pressured or not, I believe he was released legally.
I think he was 'fitted up' so I am happy to see him released.

He may be guilty, but the evidence that was brought to trial was at best tainted, at worst manufactured. So to my mind his guilt was not proven.

In the U.S. release on compassionate grounds would equate to the harder language of "hardship." It sounds to me like this Lockerbie Bomber was convicted on circumstantial evidence. In todays politcal climate the relase of a terrorist is not the kind of message that needs to be sent.

I say throw a rope over the limb of a tree and string-him-up boys. Yep, make him walk the plank or throw him to the lions.

Personally, I found his release rather disgusting, that the Scottish Justice Minister should have even considered doing it, that the Labour government should have denied all involvement in the case and that Megrahi was so celebrated on his return to Libya.

I understand that Megrahi's conviction was in all likelihood doubtful, but there are proper avenues of appeal against miscarriages of justice. I am also a great believer in the rule of law, so I recognise the importance of upholding the law as it is written and certainly no one can deny that there are grounds inherent in Scottish law, as illustrated above that exist to have granted Megrahi's release.

But when such laws give absolute discretion to a Secretary of State to grant the release of a high-profile terrorist (as he remains in the eyes of the law), when there seems to me to be clear political behind-the-scenes machinations is an affront to legal justice. I do not think such a controversial decision can be taken by a member of the executive, without the prior consent of the democratic majority of the legislative in the Scottish Parliament, outside of the normal judicial routes of appeal.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb2b....html?nclick_check=1

I think that Mr. Megrahi is innocent. I say it now, and I've stuck to that opinion for a long time. If, however, I am ever proved wrong then I shall concede to that.

For Afenton's information,I have in my possession a number of Law Books which are very expensive to buy. I rely on these when I have to research matters of law. Let me assure you here and now, that I have had to refer to these often in the course of work. I know Scottish Law very well indeed.

For your information, I did not get my information from the BBC, or from as you put it doing my research on the net. I have also looked at the transcripts of the Lockerbie Trial in some depth over the years, and have studied each appeal. Have you?

Not once in my post was I discourteous to any member on this discussion who expressed their own opinion as to whether or not Mr. Megrahi was innocent or guilty, or should have been set free on compassionate grounds. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I cannot say the same about you, as you seem to be a very angry man. Attacking the argument in a polite debate is one thing, where that apparently fails, you attack the person, or in this case myself and Asa - whom incidentally, I do not know and have never met.

Even without "very expensive books", I know a bent deal when I see it. Do you??
"Very expensive books"? What on earth are you talking about? I have some very expensive bananas in my fruit bowl; does that make me a chimpanzee?

See, I can quote the exact same phrases (interpretations; legal definitions - call 'em what you choose) as you saw fit to... repeat (parrot- or chimpanzee-fashion) as you. It doesn't make me either a bloody judge in Scotland or a sodding jury in England or the US. Y'see, since you have (I suggest, naturally) never represented someone in an even remotely similar position to Megrahi, you are not even remotely better placed to make cliams of superior knowledge in the case than me, so don't even suggest such a thing. Oh, you can have your opinion. You can even make a claim to having put it in a more civil manner than me. BUT that don't make you right...do it? (For goodness' sake, don't even think of trying to belittle my punctuation or grammar, your claims to the legal high ground having failed you.)

Angry? Am I angry that a dying "mass-murderer" has been freed because a nasty, nasty little so-called socialist politician (whose name shall remain unstated, despite it being Tony Blair) chose to arrange to free him in exchange for trade "agreements"? Yes. Are you? No, of course you ain't. The reason? You're trying too hard. maybe you should try caring (Caring? Yes; taking the world seriously enough to actually give a stuff) about anything other than your appearance.

"I have also looked at the transcripts of the Lockerbie Trial in some depth over the years, and have studied each appeal. Have you?"

You've gotta be kidding.

I s'pose that what you're trying to say is, you didn't really mean to make out like you were some expert in law, and this case in particular - that you already knew the precise legal definitions and exact terminology you QUOTED; that you hadn't even looked up, to ensure you QUOTED precisely, the position of the "Scottish government". I s'pose that makes me a chimpanzee.

Angry? Yes. Are you? No, of course you aren't. You don't give a stuff. You seem to think that denying justice, and what should be behind any judicial system, doesn't make you "discourteous". You can stick the "Scottish legal position" where the sun don't shine.