19
   

Airline bomber getting out of prison

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 12:41 pm
@Brandon9000,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:

Mr Salmond said in a Radio 4 interview that the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, had acted in accordance with Scots law. He also said Mr Mueller was wrong to claim all families disagreed with their decision.

“As you’re well aware, a number of the families, particularly in the UK, take a different view and think that we made the right decision,” he said

Mr Salmond pointed out that Mr MacAskill had not invited the two applications aimed at securing his repatriation, one for prisoner transfer and one for compassionate release. He also suggested the Americans did not understand the principle of compassionate release because it is not part of the US judicial system.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 12:47 pm
@Brandon9000,

Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.

You tell me instead, how American approach to law enforcement has decreased tension around the world since 9/11.
blueprince
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:31 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The Scotch were saving themselves the cost of keeping him alive.
Thay don 't have to pay for it as long as he is in Lybia.
______________________________________________

So it's all to do with the cost, is it?
He's been proven guilty (alright, there's some doubt. No one would notice the doubt if he wasn't dying) and is being released, knowing he's going to die. Therefore, he has nothing to lose, therefore he is much more dangerous. But, if it saves them money, it's fine.
(Spot the sarcasm)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:


Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.

You tell me instead, how American approach to law enforcement
has decreased tension around the world since 9/11.
The American approach to law enforcement
was never conceived nor intended to decrease tension around the world.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:53 pm
@blueprince,
blueprince wrote:

The Scotch were saving themselves the cost of keeping him alive.
Thay don 't have to pay for it as long as he is in Lybia.
______________________________________________

So it's all to do with the cost, is it?
He's been proven guilty (alright, there's some doubt. No one would notice the doubt if he wasn't dying) and is being released, knowing he's going to die. Therefore, he has nothing to lose, therefore he is much more dangerous. But, if it saves them money, it's fine.
(Spot the sarcasm)
The Scotch have a reputation for being thrifty.





David
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:57 pm
@aidan,
Here is pretty much every detail:

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Legal/HCJ/Lockerbie/LockerbieVerdict.html

If you want the cliff notes:

Through forensic evidence they concluded that a brown Samsonite with clothes purchased in Malta carried the bomb (which they concluded was a in Toshiba radio).

They tied this to Megrahi in two main ways:

1) The shopkeeper in Malta claims to have remembered a Libyan from 9 months earlier who bought the clothes forensics determined was near the bomb. Over ten years later he identified Megrahi as the man, but only after photos of Megrahi has been published in the press.

2) A fragment of a circuit board was found months after the incident and was claimed to be a timer from the Swiss company MEBO, which had reportedly provided the devices to the accused Libyans.

My qualms with this evidence is that the Malta shopkeeper and the MEBO witnesses both have strong weaknesses in their testimony (e.g. not knowing what color the circuit board is, when the small fragment is being touted as certainly theirs) and are pretty much the entire case against Megrahi.

I lean towards considering him involved in some way based on the available evidence but have never been comfortable with the verdict and all it leaves unanswered and very tenuously proven.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:58 pm
@blueprince,
blueprince wrote:

He's been proven guilty (alright, there's some doubt. No one would notice the doubt if he wasn't dying) and is being released, knowing he's going to die. Therefore, he has nothing to lose, therefore he is much more dangerous. But, if it saves them money, it's fine.
(Spot the sarcasm)

[...]
Quote:
On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred, the Commission granted Megrahi leave to appeal against his Lockerbie bombing conviction for a second time.[15] The second appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was abandoned in August 2009, as an impediment to the legal power to release him to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme then operating in the United Kingdom. [...]
wikipedia
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 04:33 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:


Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.

You tell me instead, how American approach to law enforcement has decreased tension around the world since 9/11.

No, I won't let you change this into a debate about other topics. When you say, "vengeance is mine, saith the lord," are you claiming that society has no right to punish criminals? Because if society does have that right, it should punish them in proportion to their crimes. And if that's so, then a person who puts a bomb on an airliner and murders hundreds, including children, should receive the severest possible punishment.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 04:39 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

McTag wrote:


Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.

You tell me instead, how American approach to law enforcement has decreased tension around the world since 9/11.

No, I won't let you change this into a debate about other topics. When you say, "vengeance is mine, saith the lord," are you claiming that society has no right to punish criminals? Because if society does have that right, it should punish them in proportion to their crimes. And if that's so, then a person who puts a bomb on an airliner and murders hundreds, including children,

should receive the severest possible punishment.
Tortured to death ?





`
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 04:40 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
When you say, "vengeance is mine, saith the lord," are you claiming that society has no right to punish criminals? Because if society does have that right, it should punish them in proportion to their crimes. And if that's so, then a person who puts a bomb on an airliner and murders hundreds, including children, should receive the severest possible punishment.


Society here is bound to the law. And all European countries have the principle of compassionate release from prison in the criminal law/law of correction services.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 04:45 am

What 's the difference,
if he 's as good as dead already ?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 05:02 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Exactly that's why he was released.

(Similar happened in our state in 2006 -last numbers I could find- 365 times; done 327 by the relevant departments at regional courts, 37 times at the justice ministry [for longer terms] and once by the Prime Minister [for life long].)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 05:16 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
When you say, "vengeance is mine, saith the lord," are you claiming that society has no right to punish criminals? Because if society does have that right, it should punish them in proportion to their crimes. And if that's so, then a person who puts a bomb on an airliner and murders hundreds, including children, should receive the severest possible punishment.


Society here is bound to the law. And all European countries have the principle of compassionate release from prison in the criminal law/law of correction services.

So....you're claiming that the law mandated that he must be released and the Scottish minister had no discretionary authority at all? This is clearly not so.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 05:34 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

So....you're claiming that the law mandated that he must be released and the Scottish minister had no discretionary authority at all? This is clearly not so.


No.

But here, not society's will is what is done but what the law says.
And what MacAskill did was according to the Scottish law.


But I could imagine that the US' boycott calls might change the Scottish law ...
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 05:52 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

So....you're claiming that the law mandated that he must be released and the Scottish minister had no discretionary authority at all? This is clearly not so.


No.

But here, not society's will is what is done but what the law says.
And what MacAskill did was according to the Scottish law.


But I could imagine that the US' boycott calls might change the Scottish law ...

I still don't understand your point. If the law would have allowed the minister to make him serve out his court sentence, then we're back to the wisdom of releasing a mass murderer.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 06:59 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
are you claiming that society has no right to punish criminals?


Are you claiming that American "society" has some right to influence the laws in another country?
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 07:41 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

When you say, "vengeance is mine, saith the lord," are you claiming that society has no right to punish criminals? Because if society does have that right, it should punish them in proportion to their crimes. And if that's so, then a person who puts a bomb on an airliner and murders hundreds, including children, should receive the severest possible punishment.

This guy is about to receive the ultimate penalty and depending on your beliefs, the ultimate judgement. You are spending a lot of emotional units on something that will be concluded shortly. I see your point about law and order, but letting someone who is about to die off a couple of months early is not going to lessen the deterent effect of a life sentence. I do think that to the average Lybian and more generally to the wider Mid-East, seeing an act of compassion from a Western country will do more to stem terrorism than letting a prisioner rot in jail. If you want to wield the stick, you have to have a few carrots and in the big picture, this is a cheap carrot.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 07:44 am
@Walter Hinteler,
There's no real boycott movement here. Sure, there is an Internet site, but the press is covering it just because it's the next great sensation. Death committees is getting old I guess.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 08:15 am
@Robert Gentel,
That was fascinating reading - thanks for posting it. What painstaking work that investigation entailed- again- I find that stuff interesting.

The shopkeeper's identification did seem a little tenuous but the aspect of the case that would have convinced me that, as you said, Megrahi was involved in some way, was the contact and activities between the two men accused along with the diary of the second man who was accused (even though from what it said, I gather that evidence was not admissable during the trial to determine the guilt of Megrahi).

After reading that - I don't feel that Megrahi was in prison totally without reason.
I also wondered a little about the baggage handler that put the two suitcases in after the container had been packed, and initially denied doing that. It just seems suspect that it was those two suitcases that were outstanding in that regard and that no one saw the person put them in. They weren't loaded on and then they were. What a mystery.
I'll have to read over that again.

I don't know what to think about compassionate release as a concept- but as someone alluded- that's probably because I'm an American- and that's not a clearly outlined tenet of our justice system.
I think this guy gave up his life when he packed that suitcase and conspired and participated in maneuvering it onto that plane (which after reading the link, I do believe he did- just my interpretation of what I read-but of course- that's how the court itself interpreted the evidence, so that's not surprising).

If he'd have been in less pain or more comfortable in another setting due to his disease - I can see doing that for him, a prison hospice where his wife and family could visit or something- but I don't agree with his release to his homeland at the government's request and expense and the resulting hero's welcome. Unless that's what you'd want to see for every violent, radical extremist (which he admitted he was) who subsequently gets sick.




0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 08:16 am
@engineer,
Quote:
I do think that to the average Lybian and more generally to the wider Mid-East, seeing an act of compassion from a Western country will do more to stem terrorism than letting a prisioner rot in jail.

I think this is very likely true- at least I hope so. That's one way to look at this in a positive light.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:28:37