Airline bomber getting out of prison

And this has what bearing on Scotland releasing a mass murderer?

contrex wrote:

I see the US is finally extraditing the convicted Irish terrorist Paul Brennan back to Britain. He is a convicted terrorist who escaped from jail in Northern Ireland in 1983, and was harboured by the United States for years despite repeated extradition attempts by Britain.

[sarcasm]
Good to know the relationship is equal
[/sarcasm]

And this has what bearing on Scotland releasing a mass murderer?

Brandon9000 wrote:

And this has what bearing on Scotland releasing a mass murderer?

Well, perhaps only a "slightly bearing", but

a) Megrahi wasn't convicted for mass murder but for his involvement in the bombing;

b) if he wasn't deadly ill there would have been a new trial,

c) Paul Brennan was convicted for murder, but though arrested twice in the USA in the early set free again,
d) Brennan lived as a free man in the USA 17 years afterwards.

As I have said before the innocent victims families in Northern Ireland had to endure pictures such as this when there was a mass release of convicted terrorists in Belfast. All done in the name of peace and with the encouragement of the then Clinton adminstration.

Most mass murderers never reach a total like 243.

Quote:

Most mass murderers never reach a total like 243.

George W Bush has exceeded that.

Should I remind you that the Lockerbie bombing was a mass murder???? Most mass murderers never reach a total like 243.
[...]
Yes, and it's so unusual for convicted murderers to appeal. I'll tell you what, if he was found innocent, he should have been freed, but as long as he was a convicted mass murderer, it's an affront to the victims and their families to free him.
[...][...]Oh, sorry, then Scotland must have been correct in freeing a person who deliberately murdered hundreds of men, women, and children, and never gave them the slightest chance to survive.

In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.

Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.

But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

For these reasons - and these reasons alone - it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Should I remind you that the Lockerbie bombing was a mass murder???? Most mass murderers never reach a total like 243.
[...]
Yes, and it's so unusual for convicted murderers to appeal. I'll tell you what, if he was found innocent, he should have been freed, but as long as he was a convicted mass murderer, it's an affront to the victims and their families to free him.
[...][...]Oh, sorry, then Scotland must have been correct in freeing a person who deliberately murdered hundreds of men, women, and children, and never gave them the slightest chance to survive.

You didn't read the verdict, did you?

And he wasn't "freed" - it was ruled by the Scottish Minister of Justice that "that al-Megrahi "be released on compassionate grounds and be allowed to return to Libya to die." (Scottish law dictates that terminally ill prisoners, with less than 3 months to live may be released from prison.)

1. Releasing a prisoner is the same as freeing him. The fact that you would dispute this is totally bizarre.
2. Is there something in the verdict that says that he isn't guilty, but that he's going to jail anyway?

Brandon9000 wrote:

1. Releasing a prisoner is the same as freeing him. The fact that you would dispute this is totally bizarre.
2. Is there something in the verdict that says that he isn't guilty, but that he's going to jail anyway?

1. Well, I'm not a native English speaker.
But I do know that there's a big difference in e.g. Scottish law (as well as German law et.al.), where freeing prisoners is an indictable offence.
2. I've read the verdict and asked you .... about "mass murder", for instance. Or why he was jailed.

As for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi the judges said: "There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the indictment as amended." Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he should serve at least 20 years before being eligible for parole.

People can be "released" from prison without being "freed"; there are various kinds of conditional release possible under English and Scottish law. For example Prisoners nearing the end of their sentence are often released during the day so they can get a job, coming back to prison at night and weekends. Other prisoners get weekend release to help keep their families together. This is not the same as "freeing" them. In fact anyone with a murder conviction who is released, is released conditionally under a lifelong licence. The terms of this licence often include conditions about where the prisoner may live, who he may associate with, reporting regularly to the police, etc. A breach of the licence terms can result in recall to prison, although admittedly this is rather unlikely given that Megrahi is terminally ill and getting him back from Libya would probably involve a process lasting longer than his remaining life. As it is, he has to report monthly to Scottish prison authorities via a video link.

So they found him guilty of involvement in a spectacularly large, cold-hearted murder of men, women, and children. What's your point?

the libel was restricted to the charge of murder.

Whether he was guily of mass murder or jaywalking, he was lawfully released from a Scottish prison by a Scottish law officer. The United States has no jurisdiction whatsoever in Scotland, nor in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Whether he was guily of mass murder or jaywalking, he was lawfully released from a Scottish prison by a Scottish law officer. The United States has no jurisdiction whatsoever in Scotland, nor in the rest of the United Kingdom.