Lockerbie bomber released on "Compassionate Grounds"

[Hexx]

True, but they let Squeaky Fromme out a couple weeks ago (although her crime was a bit different).

Exactly, which really makes it irrelevant >.>;

 

[Uzor]

you point at this thread and say "look at the mob mentality" OFCOURSE theres gonna be people who think a guy that killed 270 people being released is bullshit. but don't try to paint people who aren't viewing things from your side of the fence as somehow less "enlightened" or "civilized" then you because they want someone to serve the sentenced they were sentenced to. The way you talk about the "right thing" as tho your some kind of authority on whats "right" is making my head spin. the way you say it, it REALLY makes you look like your up on a really high horse.

See, I'm not blaming people for thinking it is bullshit. I'm simply asking them why they think it is bullshit? So far I've got no other answer than "HE KILLED 270 PEOPLE!". While I can completely understand this point of view, I do not think it is enough.

And the mob mentality wasn't in regards to people thinking it is bullshit he's getting released. The mob mentality was in regards to someone saying that because the majority feel bad for the vicitims and their family/friends, that's the way to be, and thus you shouldn't release him. THAT'S what I was referring to the mob mentality for, saying that the mob isn't always right, and just because they think that's the way it should be, doesn't mean that's the way it SHOULD be.

I don't talk about the right thing as though I'm some kind of authority pointing out what the right thing is. I'm simply sharing another point of view, hopefully leading to people considering their own point of view by discussing it. Really though, I'm not saying what the right thing is as though I'm an authority any more than any of you do

 

[Zyndara]

And the mob mentality wasn't in regards to people thinking it is bullshit he's getting released. The mob mentality was in regards to someone saying that because the majority feel bad for the vicitims and their family/friends, that's the way to be, and thus you shouldn't release him. THAT'S what I was referring to the mob mentality for, saying that the mob isn't always right, and just because they think that's the way it should be, doesn't mean that's the way it SHOULD be.

It isn't mob mentality, it's talking about justice and what that means. These are the laws and guidelines of the society he and we all live in. You commit a crime, you are found guilty, you pay your debt to society (even if your debt, such as this man's, could never be paid in some people's eyes). It's not about bandwagoning. It's having a clear definition of justice, and as such, knowing that someone sentenced for a crime should be obligated to fulfill that sentence. He was given a life sentence and in most countries, I believe the minimum is 20 years. If life is what it takes from him, so be it. He earned it.

 

[LadyKiKi]

http://boycottscotland.com/

Good timing for the 2012 Olympics too hahahaha

 

[Uzor]

It isn't mob mentality, it's talking about justice and what that means. These are the laws and guidelines of the society he and we all live in. You commit a crime, you are found guilty, you pay your debt to society (even if your debt, such as this man's, could never be paid in some people's eyes). It's not about bandwagoning. It's having a clear definition of justice, and as such, knowing that someone sentenced for a crime should be obligated to fulfill that sentence. He was given a life sentence and in most countries, I believe the minimum is 20 years. If life is what it takes from him, so be it. He earned it.

You don't understand, I wasn't talking about justice when I said mob mentality. It was that you are not allowed to feel compassion for him. That because the majority only feel compassion for the victims, it is forbidden to feel compassion for him. It has nothing to do with justice.

That boycottscottland.com site just further proves what I mean.

 

[Lucki]

Granted, I don't know much about the initial case, but from what I've been hearing on the radio (NPR) lately, the case against him was exactly water tight. Even some family members of the victims aren't convinced of his involvement.

 

[Firestreak]

Honestly Uzor I don't know what you're going for here. It's always fun to play devil's advocate but this isn't really a situation where any moral ambiguity is hanging around to play in.

The guy is sentenced to life in prison without parole.
The guy gets out.

These are just the facts of the matter. Him dying may add a little sympathy... but people die in prison. They don't get released from prison because they're dying when they steal cars. People also get released from prison early. Not mass murderers.

There's no wiggle room. There's no gray area. This is TEXTBOOK. He should be in prison or dead but no where else. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the very concept of having a justice system. If the justice system thinks it's alright to let this guy out, maybe you have a point. We'd be better off just lining people against the wall and shooting them then this bullshit.

This isn't anger speaking. I feel relatively little emotion about thihs whole thing. As a society, we'd be better off dispensing our own justice than allowing this to happen. If it's going to be this fucked up, why pay all those taxes for a useless system and take all that time? We're better off without it.

This is what you should be arguing against. You should be arguing that the system fucked up but you think it's better than nothing. That people's lives were effectively traded for political gain, and while the people responsible should go to jail for it, the system should be maintained for the greater good.

You should not be arguing that there was some grounds for letting this guy go, because there aren't any.

Not on a legal level, not on a logical level, not on an emotional level and certainly not on a moral level. If all is forgiven, and nothing is punished, then the only morality is that which exists as a basis of our on conscious, and those without regret are gods among men.

 

[bigbroon]

Granted, I don't know much about the initial case, but from what I've been hearing on the radio (NPR) lately, the case against him was exactly water tight. Even some family members of the victims aren't convinced of his involvement.

As irrelevant as I think it is, this is pretty accurate; irrelevant to the point of discussion in the thread, I mean.

Is he guilty? Who knows, but the evidence CERTAINLY isn't conclusive enough NOW. If the same thing happened again now, they'd struggle to jail the guy based on the same evidence.

However, he was convicted, and jailed, and released. Had he been released for, as I've said before, evidence issues or something along those lines, there would be little, if any, outrage. He wasn't, thought. They released him on compassionate grounds because he's supposedly dying of a very common illness, and THAT is why people are so infuriated.

 

[Uzor]

Honestly Uzor I don't know what you're going for here. It's always fun to play devil's advocate but this isn't really a situation where any moral ambiguity is hanging around to play in.

The guy is sentenced to life in prison without parole.
The guy gets out.

These are just the facts of the matter. Him dying may add a little sympathy... but people die in prison. They don't get released from prison because they're dying when they steal cars. People also get released from prison early. Not mass murderers.

There's no wiggle room. There's no gray area. This is TEXTBOOK. He should be in prison or dead but no where else. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the very concept of having a justice system. If the justice system thinks it's alright to let this guy out, maybe you have a point. We'd be better off just lining people against the wall and shooting them then this bullshit.

This isn't anger speaking. I feel relatively little emotion about thihs whole thing. As a society, we'd be better off dispensing our own justice than allowing this to happen. If it's going to be this fucked up, why pay all those taxes for a useless system and take all that time? We're better off without it.

This is what you should be arguing against. You should be arguing that the system fucked up but you think it's better than nothing. That people's lives were effectively traded for political gain, and while the people responsible should go to jail for it, the system should be maintained for the greater good.

You should not be arguing that there was some grounds for letting this guy go, because there aren't any.

Not on a legal level, not on a logical level, not on an emotional level and certainly not on a moral level. If all is forgiven, and nothing is punished, then the only morality is that which exists as a basis of our on conscious, and those without regret are gods among men.

I disagree. Imo I'm arguing just for the right thing.

The only thing I think the legal system is fucked up for is for:

1. Jailing a man without enough evidence.
2. Withholding evidence that could potentially free him.
3. Fabricating evidence.


For example of shady evidence in this case:

A circuit board fragment, allegedly found embedded in a piece of charred material, was identified as part of an electronic timer similar to that found on a Libyan intelligence agent who had been arrested 10 months previously, carrying materials for a Semtex bomb. The timer allegedly was traced through its Swiss manufacturer, Mebo, to the Libyan military, and Mebo employee Ulrich Lumpert identified the fragment at al-Megrahi's trial. Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, later revealed that in 1991 he had declined an offer from the FBI of $4 million to testify that the timer fragment was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya. On 18 July 2007, Ulrich Lumpert admitted he had lied at the trial.

In a sworn affidavit before a Zurich notary public, Lumpert stated that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer printed circuit board from Mebo and gave it without permission on 22 June 1989, to "an official person investigating the Lockerbie case". Dr Hans Köchler, UN observer at the Lockerbie trial, who was sent a copy of Lumpert's affidavit, said: "The Scottish authorities are now obliged to investigate this situation. Not only has Mr Lumpert admitted to stealing a sample of the timer, but to the fact he gave it to an official and then lied in court".

In a documentary entitled "Lockerbie revisited" aired on 27 April 2009, the film's director and narrator, Gideon Levy, interviewed officials involved with the case. Former FBI laboratory scientist Fred Whitehurst described the FBI laboratory itself as a "crime scene", where an unqualified colleague Thomas Thurman would routinely alter his scientific reports. The interviews also revealed that the timer fragment had never been tested for explosives residue due to "budgetary reasons". Thurman, who led the forensic investigation and identified the fragments' Libyan connection, confirmed that it was the "only real piece of evidence against Libya" and when asked of the importance of the timer in the conviction of al-Megrahi, FBI Task Force Chief Richard Marquise stated, "It would be a very difficult case to prove ... I don't think we would ever (have) had an indictment".

Here, you can see the main evidence they have against the Libya is the timer, which has been later revealed to have been planted. Not only did they steal it, they also lied about it, and attempted to bribe a man to testify about its validity.

Let's continue.

Investigators also discovered that an unaccompanied bag had been routed onto PA 103, via the interline baggage system, from Luqa airport on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt, and then by feeder flight PA 103A to Heathrow. This unaccompanied bag was shown at the trial to have been the suitcase that contained the bomb. In 2009 it was revealed that security guard Ray Manley had reported that Heathrow's Pan Am baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before flight 103 took off. Police lost the report and it was never investigated or brought up at trial.

The judgement stated:"From the evidence which we have discussed so far, we are satisfied that it has been proved that the primary suitcase containing the explosive device was dispatched from Malta, passed through Frankfurt and was loaded onto PA103 at Heathrow. It is, as we have said, clear that with one exception the clothing in the primary suitcase was the clothing purchased in Mr Gauci’s shop on 7 December 1988. The purchaser was, on Mr Gauci’s evidence, a Libyan. The trigger for the explosion was an MST-13 timer of the single solder mask variety. A substantial quantity of such timers had been supplied to Libya.

The fuselage of the aircraft was reconstructed by air accident investigators, revealing a 20-inch (510 mm) hole consistent with an explosion in the forward cargo hold. Examination of the baggage containers revealed that the container nearest the hole had blackening, pitting, and severe damage indicating a "high-energy event" had taken place inside it. A series of test explosions was carried out to confirm the precise location and quantity of explosive used.

Fragments of a Samsonite suitcase believed to have contained the bomb were recovered, together with parts and pieces of circuit board identified as part of a Toshiba Bombeat radio cassette player, similar to that used to conceal a Semtex bomb seized by West German police from the Palestinian militant group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command two months earlier. Items of baby clothing, which were subsequently proven to have been made in Malta, were also thought to have come from the same suitcase.

The clothes were traced to a Maltese merchant, Tony Gauci, who became a key prosecution witness, testifying that he sold the clothes to a man of Libyan appearance, whom he later identified as Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. However, an official report providing information not available during the original trial stated that Gauci had seen a picture of al-Megrahi in a magazine which connected al-Megrahi to the bombing, a fact which could have distorted his judgment.

Megrahi's lawyers applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) on 23 September 2003 to have his case referred back to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a fresh appeal against conviction. The application to the SCCRC followed the publication of two reports in February 2001 and March 2002 by Hans Köchler, who had been an international observer at Camp Zeist, Netherlands appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Köchler described the decisions of the trial and appeal courts as a "spectacular miscarriage of justice". Köchler also issued a series of statements in 2003, 2005, and 2007 calling for an independent international inquiry into the case and accusing the West of "double standards in criminal justice" in relation to the Lockerbie trial on the one hand and the HIV trial in Libya on the other.

On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC announced its decision to refer Megrahi's case to the High Court for a second appeal against conviction. The SCCRC's decision was based on facts set out in an 800-page report that determined that "a miscarriage of justice may have occurred". Köchler criticised the SCCRC for exonerating police, prosecutors and forensic staff from blame in respect of Megrahi's alleged wrongful conviction. He told The Herald of 29 June 2007: "No officials to be blamed, simply a Maltese shopkeeper. Köchler also highlighted the role of intelligence services in the trial and stated that proper judicial proceedings could not be conducted under conditions in which extrajudicial forces are allowed to intervene.

On 15 October 2008, five Scottish judges decided unanimously to reject a submission by the Crown Office to the effect that the scope of Megrahi's second appeal should be limited to the specific grounds of appeal that were identified by the SCCRC in June 2007. In January 2009, it was reported that, although Megrahi's second appeal against conviction was scheduled to begin on 27 April 2009, the hearing could last as long as 12 months because of the complexity of the case and volume of material to be examined. The second appeal was expected to be heard by five judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. However, on 12 August 2009, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi applied to have his appeal dropped. Although it would have been necessary to drop the appeal to secure repatriation under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme, this was not a pre-condition for compassionate release, which is what was actually granted. Megrahi's defence team stated in a press conference that their client had been pressurised into dropping the appeal prior to the decision being made on compassionate release, however in his public statement Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill stated that that decision had been entirely Megrahi's own choice. Prior to the appeal being dropped, a procedural hearing at the Appeal Court took place on 11 October 2007 when prosecution lawyers and Megrahi's defence Counsel, Maggie Scott QC, discussed a number of legal issues with a panel of three judges. One of the issues concerned a number of documents that were shown before the trial to the prosecution, but were not disclosed to the defence. The documents are understood to relate to the Mebo MST-13 timer that allegedly detonated the PA103 bomb. Maggie Scott also asked for documents relating to an alleged payment of $2 million made to Maltese merchant, Tony Gauci, for his testimony at the trial, which led to the conviction of Megrahi.

In the June 2008 edition of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, the UN Observer at the Lockerbie trial, Professor Hans Köchler, referred to the 'totalitarian' nature of Megrahi's second appeal process saying it "bears the hallmarks of an 'intelligence operation'." Pointing out an error on the FCO's website and accusing the British government of "delaying tactics" in relation to Megrahi's second Lockerbie appeal, UN Observer at the Lockerbie trial Dr Hans Köchler wrote to Foreign Secretary David Miliband on 21 July 2008 saying:

As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?

The FCO corrected the error on its website and wrote to Köchler on 27 August 2008:

"Ultimately, it will be for the Court to decide whether the material should be disclosed, not the Foreign Secretary."

The case were built around 3 points:

1.that the bomb timer used was from a batch sold by a Swiss firm, Mebo AG to Libya;

2. a former colleague in the Libyan Airlines office in Malta, Abdulmajid Gialka, who was due to testify that he had seen the construction of the bomb, or at least its loading onto the plane at Frankfurt;

23 that the clothes identified as having been in the bomb suitcase had been bought by the defendant Megrahi at a shop in Malta.

Which as I mentioned earlier are somewhat shady. Including, but not limited to:

Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper, failed to positively identify Megrahi in nineteen separate pre-trial statements to the police. In court, Gauci was asked five times if he recognised anyone in the courtroom, without replying. Only when the prosecutor pointed to Megrahi did Gauci say that "he resembles him". On a previous occasion Gauci had identified Abu Talb (who the defence contended was the real bomber) saying that Talb resembled the customer "a lot". Gauci's police statements identified the customer as over 6 feet tall and over 50 years of age; Megrahi is 5 feet 8 inches, and in late 1988 was 36.

Additionally;

A male caller claimed that a group called the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution had destroyed the plane in retaliation for the U.S. shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 in the Persian Gulf the previous July.

This airplane was shot down by US Navy in 1988 and killed all 290 passengers on board, including 66 children.

Again, I'm not saying he is innocent. But the whole thing is quite shady imo.

 

[Firestreak]

1) You're quoting a lot of information without a source.
2) This addresses him being released via an appeal, a proper legal channel. Not being released on "compassionate grounds," which is nonsensical.

 

[Keryan]

Dear god uzor that bright green hurts the eyes.

 

[Dejavu]

1) You're quoting a lot of information without a source.
2) This addresses him being released via an appeal, a proper legal channel. Not being released on "compassionate grounds," which is nonsensical.

Not to mention as part of being released on compassionate grounds his appeal that he had pending was stifled and the truth may never be known. Not to mention there are now rumors of a sweetheart deal between the libyan government and the Uk over the Uks commercial interests.

The compassionate release wreaks of coverup.

 

[Uzor]

His second appeal was canceled by the bomber's own request. Rumor has it he was going to be transfered, which isn't possible with an an on-going appeal. Some time after that, he was released on compassionate grounds rather than transfered. Release on compassionate ground is still possible even with an on-going appeal though. Either way, there's most likely something else behind his release.

And yeah, it hurt my eyes too. I colored them to easier compare related evidence with each other, and I ran out of colors, unless you wanted yellow, which would hurt even more <.<; I colored it to a not-so-bright green now though xD It helped

 

[bigbroon]

His second appeal was canceled by the bomber's own request. Rumor has it he was going to be transfered, which isn't possible with an an on-going appeal. Some time after that, he was released on compassionate grounds rather than transfered. Release on compassionate ground is still possible even with an on-going appeal though. Either way, there's most likely something else behind his release.

And yeah, it hurt my eyes too. I colored them to easier compare related evidence with each other, and I ran out of colors, unless you wanted yellow, which would hurt even more <.<; I colored it to a not-so-bright green now though xD It helped

Rumours are bad, mmmkay?

He wasn't going to be transerred; it was suggested, and quashed very quickly, there was never any question that he would be transferred, other than media speculation - and we all know how much of what they say is reliable.

Just today, the government here in Scotland released all the paperwork concerning Megrahi's release; Kenny McCaskill, the man who authorised the release, went to visit Megrahi 4 times and suggested each time that he drop his appeal in order to be released on "compassionate grounds". Why? All this really says is "admit your guilt and we'll let you go through pity".

Your absurdly long post full of quotes without sources was, quite frankly, a waste of time, as you've again failed to see the bigger picture:

- Whether or not Megrahi was inoccent or guilty is IRRELEVANT. He is now back in Libya as a free man BECAUSE HE HAS CANCER. He was released as a tried and convicted guilty man, having murdered 270 people, and lack of evidence has NEVER been used as an excuse for his release. Again, I've said this before, but you're not listening.

1) Megrahi was found guilty of 270 murders and jailed accordingly.
2) Megrahi got cancer.
3) Megrahi was released because he has cancer, not because of new evidence or anything to prove his innocence.

All of your quotes and the like would be relevant had he been released because of lack of evidence, and assumed innocent - but he wasn't, so they're meaningless.

Once more, for the road.

Megrahi, a mass murderer, was released because he had cancer.

Him being innocent, or the evidence used to prove him guilty being flawed, is IRRELEVANT.

 

[Uzor]

Which is where I disagree, again. I know he was released because he had cancer, I never argued that point. Bringing it up is irrelevant.

What I'm saying is, I completely agree with compassionate release, even if said guy supposedly murdered 270 people.

One of the reasons is that there's always a chance said convict is innocent. Yes, he went to trial. Yes, he was found guilty. however, there's always a chance said convict is guilty, as has been proved in the past, as shall be proved in the future. That's the reason I brought up all of those quotes, to show that there is more than the "He murdered 270 people! Its all black and white!" side of the story.

 

[Zyndara]

It's not irrelevant. He showed no compassion to 270 people plus their family and friends. Why is compassion being shown to him? Life sentence is just that. He hasn't served life, he shouldn't be going anywhere.

You can't run a justice system on "oh there's always a chance he didn't really do it." You run a justice system on burden of proof and judgement of jury. Apparently enough people believed he was guilty enough for a conviction. And until he proved otherwise in a court of law, he belonged in a jail cell. Period.

 

[bigbroon]

Which is where I disagree, again. I know he was released because he had cancer, I never argued that point. Bringing it up is irrelevant.

What I'm saying is, I completely agree with compassionate release, even if said guy supposedly murdered 270 people.

One of the reasons is that there's always a chance said convict is innocent. Yes, he went to trial. Yes, he was found guilty. however, there's always a chance said convict is guilty, as has been proved in the past, as shall be proved in the future. That's the reason I brought up all of those quotes, to show that there is more than the "He murdered 270 people! Its all black and white!" side of the story.

So, from what I've bolded in your post, you're saying that ANYONE should be eligible for compassionate release, regardless of the crime committed and time served for their crime?

Along the same lines, does this mean that if you have cancer, you can do anything you want and avoid jail? Certain people should be eligible for compassionate release, and only after certain crimes. Some should never be able to see the light of day again, and Megrahi is one of them.

The majority of people in Scotland are ashamed of this decision and what it has made our country look like, simply because such a seemingly simple decision (to leave him in jail until he died) was ignored, and the man released because Kenny McCaskill's moral judgment was flawed. Compassion should have nothing to do with justice, and it CERTAINLY shouldn't come into play with a mass murderer.

 

[Cort]

Criminal rights should never come before victims rights. He was tried and convicted. He should die in jail, alone, without his loved ones nearby - just like the 270 people he had a hand in killing.

It's disgusting to see murderers, or other violent criminals, released; something that happens far to often. See Phillip Garrido, Arthur Bremer, etc.

Those who kill and those who rape oftentimes cannot be "rehabilitated" and should just be put down.

Along the same lines, does this mean that if you have cancer, you can do anything you want and avoid jail? Certain people should be eligible for compassionate release, and only after certain crimes. Some should never be able to see the light of day again, and Megrahi is one of them.

Sweet action, brb robbing a bank.
P.S. Denny Crane.

 

[Uzor]

So, from what I've bolded in your post, you're saying that ANYONE should be eligible for compassionate release, regardless of the crime committed and time served for their crime?

Along the same lines, does this mean that if you have cancer, you can do anything you want and avoid jail? Certain people should be eligible for compassionate release, and only after certain crimes. Some should never be able to see the light of day again, and Megrahi is one of them.

The majority of people in Scotland are ashamed of this decision and what it has made our country look like, simply because such a seemingly simple decision (to leave him in jail until he died) was ignored, and the man released because Kenny McCaskill's moral judgment was flawed. Compassion should have nothing to do with justice, and it CERTAINLY shouldn't come into play with a mass murderer.

As I've said countless times in the thread already, yes. As long as they do not pose a risk to those around them.

And not once has I stated a justice system should be built around "Oh, but he might be innocent!".

 

[Cort]

As I've said countless times in the thread already, yes. As long as they do not pose a risk to those around them.

And not once has I stated a justice system should be built around "Oh, but he might be innocent!".

The very act of murdering someones means you're a risk to others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy's sentence was LIFE in prison. That means you die in a prison cell, not in your home. You gave that choice up when you decided to kill someone.