Lockerbie Bomber to be released

[Totenkopf]

Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly. As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways.

 

Well, unless a guy is in solitary confinement for his whole time in prison, it's not exactly solitary. It is confinement. If a criminal isn't even remotely repentant for his/her behavior it would verge on madness and irresponsibility to release such a (probably sociopathic) person back into the public. Actually, I'd say there's no reason for them NOT to live in what you call solitude if they are unrepentant/unproductive in their ways.

 

Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible.That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.

 

Seems to me that life in prison is not even remotely a harsh sentence for the crime of which he was convicted (his actaul guilt being another matter).

[JediAthos]

I think it's fine that they released him, but only as long as he's kept under police watch. Letting someone convicted of bombings wander around free is just not a good idea, even if the evidence used to convict him doesn't seem so reliable now. It seems that the US is talking with Libya about doing this, so it's probably covered already.

 

I would imagine that every intelligence agency in the western world will be watching him in some way shape or form.

[Darth333]

[...]Thanks for putting our safety at risk.

Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.

 

he will make bombs from his chemo drugs bloo bloo bloo

[Totenkopf]

Well, I think it does send a poor message. Help plan and execute an operation that kills a lot of people and you too probably won't have to serve out a life sentence if caught (at least if you're imprisoned in Scotland ). I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? They're going to die soon anyway. I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like.

[Darth333]

Well, I think it does send a poor message. Help plan and execute an operation that kills a lot of people and you too probably won't have to serve out a life sentence if caught (at least if you're imprisoned in Scotland ). I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp? They're going to die soon anyway. I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like.

I mean, if we (the "west") are going to be so lax in our approach to these kind of things, why bother going after aging nazis that were gaurds at a death camp?

That is irrelevant. My only question was about the "risk to our safety" in a particular case. I never said there shouldn't be any condemnation.

 

Does it? Death sentence doesn't discourage people from committing crimes I've seen countless studies about it that tend to show that states/countries that have death penalty are far from getting lower crime rates than others ( I will gladly post some links on Sunday if needed but not at 1 am on a Friday evening...or Saturday morning...)

 

I'd say it only helps to encourage the other side (jihadis) that western countries really are weak. Whether he personally ever does anything again is irrelevant, he's now a symbol, a propoganda victory if you like.

I so wish I could discuss this and post my opinion openly but I can't...let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it and, with all due respect (you certainly know I like to discuss politics with you ) , whether or not we agree with the release, don't see how in the hell (or heaven) it will affect "our safety" in any way.

[Jae Onasi]

Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.

Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one? He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.

 

@PastramiX--I'll take your non-answer as a 'no', you wouldn't get on the plane.

[Darth Avlectus]

While evidence for his indictment may seem a bit questionable, does nobody think he, himself, might have had something to do with putting the cloud of doubt upon the evidence? Consider it.

 

Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly.

 

There are cases where there is no other alternative. I see you insist this isn't one of them, though below you do acknowledge such a case.

 

As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual?

Because this may be the very slipping point some of them need for *just one more* strike. That is how criminal minds operate. They're not above taking advantage of the gullible.

 

While there is no shame in trying to understand people, at some point you have to stop intellectualizing because there are people who will never change. Especially if nothing more can be done to understand. It's a refinement that would probably do a great job of separating the truly good from the truly bad. But for the few you do purge from the pile-up, how many more are nothing but a hopeless pursuit?

 

Also, such a thing is not only dangerous but also expensive. If you throw money at it, what defines it as cost effective, marginally rehabilitated individuals? How many of those (which itself is still a shaky prospect) do you get compared to, hopeless wild goose chases?

 

As generalized as propositions are when proposed: if it is not cost effective, do you really think the public is going to take kindly to it?

 

Someone who is/has been a threat to multiple people...going light on them is hardly smart or wise.

 

There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways.

 

I disagree, especially where rehabilitation has been tried and it failed. Not to say it _never_ works, but as I pointed out above, it may not be coste effective, amongst several other issues to be considered.

 

Productive and Repentant are two concepts it sounds like you've mish-mashed together.

 

Productivity wise: I agree with you that people in 'the system' need to be made to be more productive. However, that'll never make someone change their ways. It would be a way of making the guilty earn their keep.

 

Repentance is, obviously, changed of their ways. At risk of sounding judgmental: While it is the objective of correctional disciplinsation, it is often not reachable.

 

Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center.

As do I. Still, this can only be so effective.

 

Curious. Have you ever taken any criminal justice classes? Have you ever worked for/with a company that contracts with the government to attempt to rehabilitate individuals deemed most eligible for rehab/probation? You do sound genuine in your concerns.

 

After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible.

The prison and jail systems around the world are not perfect. Sometimes I even believe our suspicions are spot on that the system is just doing whatever it can in order to make as much money for itself as possible. Having said that, I'd prefer that all potential dangers to society be locked safely away from where they could harm innocents.

 

That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present.

 

Granted.

 

At what point would this no longer be effective, though?

 

So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Isn't that a bit over the top? While I don't agree with the decision of releasing that man from a personal pov (I admit knowing nothing about Scottish laws) how does that put "our safety" at risk? Even as someone who has been working with air carriers since a long while now, I totally fail to see where the so-called risk to "our safety" is in this case.

 

If you don't personally agree with the decision, it may be subjective, or it may be that other smarts aside from the book variety are kicking in. Street smarts. So far as the danger, well, if he was connected to something that culminated in the deaths of so many, then I would think that alone raises several questions about his ability to plan guerrilla warfare tactics. On top, if he is potentially involved with killing people, does that not raise questions about his ethical and moral standpoint?

 

If the two questions together do not raise enough concern about the threat he poses to the safety of citizens, then would you mind telling me what does constitute such concern?

 

Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one? He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.

 

Hadn't even gotten to that--conspiring to grow a militia for malicious intents. Another consideration.

[adamqd]

At the end of the day, I dont believe in all this rehabilitation, for a thief or drug user yes, Murderer... sorry, your in side a cell because the country who prosecuted you doesn't believe in the death penalty, there is no coming back, no compassion IMO, You deserve nothing.

[jrrtoken]

Well, he was convicted of planning and executing an airplane bombing. What's going to stop him from planning a second one?

Nothing; whether or not he will actually physically prepare and execute an attack, either personally or through other contacts, is a completely different question. As far as I know, he's under certain degree of surveillance by the Libyan gov't, and if that doesn't provide solace, then he's probably being stalked by every asset that the CIA has at their disposal.

He might not be able to carry it out himself, but he has the knowledge, and now can talk to anyone freely about how to do just that. That's aside from the fact that it's a slap in the face to all the families who lost loved ones on that flight.

Okay, but IMO, most of the families are incapable of showing a scrap of compassion, mercy, etc. towards the man, which is understandable, but is also simply a concentration of vengeance clouding all sort of reason. Ergo, they shouldn't even be taken seriously as a font of judgment in this argument.

@PastramiX--I'll take your non-answer as a 'no', you wouldn't get on the plane.

Sorry; I don't answer questions designed to elicit a negative response from either answer; that's character assassination. Perhaps if I was presented an argument not based on borderline ad hominem, then perhaps I would provide an actual answer. Until then, I'm saving you the delight of answering your trap.

[Totenkopf]

That is irrelevant. My only question was about the "risk to our safety" in a particular case. I never said there shouldn't be any condemnation.

 

Problem is that it's an open question as to what threat he personally may be now that he's free. If you mean to imply that you think setting him free is a case of poor judgement (hence condemnable), but you believe him too far gone to be a direct threat, that is speculative (as is the contention that he'll probably blow up another plane). My point is that "mercy" in this case was clearly misplaced. He could have been treated for cancer while imprisoned. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that such "mercy" only reinforces the idea of a the "west" as weak and corrupt in the eyes of the radical islamist. Such people are only egged on by such gestures.

 

Does it? Death sentence doesn't discourage people from committing crimes I've seen countless studies about it that tend to show that states/countries that have death penalty are far from getting lower crime rates than others ( I will gladly post some links on Sunday if needed but not at 1 am on a Friday evening...or Saturday morning...)

 

Actually, you may have jumped the gun here as you seem to infer I'm saying he should've gotten the death penalty (not that it would have bothered me, either) and that would have dissuaded others from following in his footsteps. The only recidivism we know for sure that the death penalty prevents is by the perp himself or herself. I don't believe the point of execution is primarily to serve as a deterrent to others as much as a guarantee that the perp in question will never become a recidivist. As to the links, if you wish to post them, I'll take a look.

 

I so wish I could discuss this and post my opinion openly but I can't...let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it and, with all due respect (you certainly know I like to discuss politics with you ) , whether or not we agree with the release, don't see how in the hell (or heaven) it will affect "our safety" in any way.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "it" (let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree that the release has anything to do with it ), unless you mean safety in the general sense. Well, without a crystal ball/clairvoyance/inside info, it's difficult to make a rock solid open-shut case about anything, really.

[Astor]

Well, the silence from our glorious leader on this matter is deafening.

 

The Scottish Parliament was recalled for an emergency session yesterday to discuss the matter, amid continued criticism from within the UK and across the Atlantic. There are rumours and accusations that Megrahi's release is due to a trade agreement between the UK and Libyan governments.

 

So, where's Gordon been? On holiday, leaving Lord Mandelson (or, the cat that got the cream) to speak on the matter, which is ironic considering he's linked to the accusations of an agreement with Libya.

 

I find it ridiculous that the Prime Minister can take time out of his schedule to congratulate British sports teams on their victories, or speak about the death of a celebrity, or enquire about the health of Susan Boyle when he wants to, but can't be found when there's a genuine crisis occuring.

 

He's meeting the Israeli Prime Minister today - and he can't avoid answering some very hard questions about the release of Megrahi.

 

It's just a shame it's almost six days too late.

[SW01]

The whole thing has been absurd - I was expecting a meeting of the Parliaments, or for the Minister to be dragged before a Committee within a day or two, yet only now after nearly a week does the government start to stir...

 

The rumour about an exchange for trade, well it was my first thought too, especially since a while back (years, maybe?) we were being convinced that the Libyan government was our new best friend - I seem to remember a Libyan representative of some kind being brought to the site of the bombing.

 

I wonder, what would the backlash be if such a thing ever emerged? I would expect the current Scottish government party to get hammered - I don't know if it's possible for Labour to be in any worse position, but I'm sure their total lack of input/intervention will count against them.

 

Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'

[Totenkopf]

Hmmm...interesting:

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Medical-advice--on-Libyan.5587119.jp

[SW01]

Suggestions that he was not as ill as was thought, apparent lack of symptoms for such an advanced stage, no consensus or specialists willing to say, notions that the doctor who did give the prognosis was in the employ of Libya...

 

Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems. If they cannot prove their own assertions - well, at least we know the current British Government isn't likely to do anything, after Brown's speech.

 

"I really don't think we should be speculating on the day somebody is going to die."

 

When that's the reason for a mass murderer being released, yeah we really should.

[Astor]

It's disgraceful at best.

 

Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems.

 

I have to agree, and it only reinforces my view that such a decision should not have been made solely by one Scottish minister, no matter how much he 'weighed the consequences'. The decision should have been made by the UK government, with close co-operation with the US government.

 

This affair has already damaged Scotland and the UK's image abroad (seeing as there are some misguided individuals out there who can't make the distinction between the two), and it may well do untold damage to both governments at the next election.

[El Sitherino]

Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.

 

Technically it'd be far easier to organize while behind bars.

As for his release, it's extremely disrespectful for those closely tied to the event that placed him in prison. There are numerous convicts I can think of that would be better suited for pity release.

[Darth Avlectus]

The whole thing has been absurd - I was expecting a meeting of the Parliaments, or for the Minister to be dragged before a Committee within a day or two, yet only now after nearly a week does the government start to stir...

 

Uh-oh... Welcome to how it's all done (stalling and dragging it out as long as possible for media and whatnot) in America's less scrupulous corners.

 

The rumour about an exchange for trade, well it was my first thought too, especially since a while back (years, maybe?) we were being convinced that the Libyan government was our new best friend - I seem to remember a Libyan representative of some kind being brought to the site of the bombing.

 

...NEW BEST FRIEND?! WTF? That's just...screwed up, man... RPG launching, machine gun toting, aggressive Lybians? Oh lord. I'm becoming cynical about your country already, just hearing that.

 

Justice, my friend, is about to take on a whole new meaning for your nation if it hasn't already.

 

I wonder, what would the backlash be if such a thing ever emerged? I would expect the current Scottish government party to get hammered - I don't know if it's possible for Labour to be in any worse position, but I'm sure their total lack of input/intervention will count against them.

 

It could and will get worse: I'd be wary of anyone talking about changing the constitution in your country or somehow relegating/curtailing/ or in some way controlling free speech and setting limits to your level of civil protest.

Be it through some kind of broad censorship/doctrine and/or some kinds of rules that would allow for arbitrarily deciding whether or not you are 'diverse' enough when that itself may be a red herring to the points you're trying to get across.

 

Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'

 

You'd be surprised of how many people would actually argue the case of innocence for people like Hitler, Stalin, or even Mao Tse Tung who murdered more than the both of them combined. Funny how American textbooks are conveniently omitting that fact.

 

Suggestions that he was not as ill as was thought, apparent lack of symptoms for such an advanced stage, no consensus or specialists willing to say, notions that the doctor who did give the prognosis was in the employ of Libya...

 

And there has been no significant dialog about it yet, has there? Neither about the doctor, nor the 'patient' has been discussed in any great detail, has it?

 

...seen it happen before...

 

Good God, the Scots government really 'dropped the ball', it seems. If they cannot prove their own assertions - well, at least we know the current British Government isn't likely to do anything, after Brown's speech.

 

When that's the reason for a mass murderer being released, yeah we really should.

 

I agree.

[Samuel Dravis]

Something I have become concerned about is the precedent that this could set - a man convicted of mass murder is released to live out the final days of a terminal illness. What about the person suffering from a terminal illness, convicted of remorselessly killing twenty? Or a hundred? Or anything up to 270? You can't say in open court 'Oh, Megrahi was a special case, because Libya were going to trade with us/give us equipment/whatever it turns out to be.'

What about them? In the end, it is clearly the Justice Secretary's decision to allow mercy releases like this one or not. It's not a case of "You meet these criteria, you get out." One prisoner's release does not guarantee another prisoner's release, even if they have exactly the same circumstances. Instead, whether one is released or not relies entirely on the will of the secretary.

 

As for it making precedent, well, conforming to precedent with the mercy power would make absolute nonsense of the power in the first place. The purpose being, of course, to grant mercy when it is desirable, regardless of the circumstances of the prisoner. Not to mention it would limit the power of the office, and no official would ever want that...

[Astor]

Government Releases Lockerbie Documents.

 

Both the Scottish and UK government have released letters and documents relating to the release of Megrahi.

 

One such letter suggests that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary did not want Megrahi to die in prison.

 

The Prime Minister has still refused to publish his feelings on the matter, simply saying that it was a matter for the Scottish Government. But it now seems that, behind closed doors, the Prime Minister was in favour of releasing Megrahi.

 

And of course, this comes a few days after it emerged that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, made clear that it was in the UK's 'best interests' that Megrahi was not excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

 

Opposition Leader, David Cameron has called for an inquiry into the release and the alleged deals behind it.

 

One thing is certain - the Government (and the Prime Minister) can't ignore this for much longer.

[Jae Onasi]

And of course, this comes a few days after it emerged that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, made clear that it was in the UK's 'best interests' that Megrahi was not excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

The UK's 'best interests' also happen to involve a sweet oil deal.

 

What a surprise. I think I'll have a heart attack and die from that surprise. [/iago the Parrot sarcasm]

[Totenkopf]

The UK's 'best interests' also happen to involve a sweet oil deal.

 

Does that mean it was a "Megrahi for oil scandal"

[El Sitherino]

What I don't understand is how in any way this will prove to benefit anyone in this supposed war on terrorists. Terrorists are made every day through starvation and mistreatment, hell this will probably provoke some Scots to do a little devilish business.

[ForeverNight]

It doesn't really benefit anybody but the terrorists. It benefits them as they now have: A) A free hero who got away from the West. B) A resource on how to conduct plane bombings. C) A clear indication that the West is weak.

 

Point B isn't truly valid since the security measures -at least I would have to think- have more than doubled since then, but it's still a concern.

[Darth Avlectus]

What I don't understand is how in any way this will prove to benefit anyone in this supposed war on terrorists. Terrorists are made every day through starvation and mistreatment, hell this will probably provoke some Scots to do a little devilish business.

 

It doesn't really benefit anybody but the terrorists. It benefits them as they now have: A) A free hero who got away from the West. B) A resource on how to conduct plane bombings. C) A clear indication that the West is weak.

 

Point B isn't truly valid since the security measures -at least I would have to think- have more than doubled since then, but it's still a concern.

 

Vicious circle.

 

It is an unfortunate turn of events to be sure. I guess the best we can do is be vigilant and on guard.