Lockerbie Bomber Released From Jail

[Ranger2]

As the time I type this, the Lockerbie terrorist, by the last name of Al-Megrahi, (his full name is really long), is in a plane on the way back to Libya. He is one of the people who assisted with the Pan Am Flight 103 terrorist attack. In 1988, the Pan Am Flight 103, a flight that was going from London to the United States, was planted with a bomb, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. There were no survivors.

This man, who has helped kill 270 people, is going free after serving 8 years in prison.
You see, this is a true miscarriage of justice. This terrorist, this monster, is going to live out the rest of his life in freedom, regarded as a hero with his friends. While he's celebrating, 270 people are rolling over in their graves.

I bet that Europe is thinking about re-instating the death penalty so monsters like him will never go free again.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

The guy has terminal prostate cancer. The rest of his life is going to be a very slow and painful death. And by the rest of his life I mean the 3 months that he's estimated to have left.

[morefngdbs]

Ranger2, while I do appreciate how you feel. I also believe that mercy to these animals will do nothing to stop their unconscionable behavior, of killing innocent civilians in an attempt to terrorize a government(s) who (rightfully) refuse to submit to this tactic.
I have to go along with Tri's opinion.
This guy is going to suffer a lingering wasting terminal illness (& I for one think its a perfect fate for him)
But the people in charge have sent a message out there, that they are compassionate, even to those who really don't deserve it.
I really believe that is what's truely important here.
They (those terrorist murderers) may not have any compassion for anyone, but we refuse to sink to their level.

[Proteas]

At 8/20/09 12:39 PM, morefngdbs wrote: They (those terrorist murderers) may not have any compassion for anyone, but we refuse to sink to their level.

... their level?

Since when is keeping a convicted murderer in prison for LIFE sinking down to their level?

[morefngdbs]

At 8/20/09 12:56 PM, Proteas wrote: Since when is keeping a convicted murderer in prison for LIFE sinking down to their level?

;;;
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I meant that the people in charge of the correctional facility, have let him go home to die. AKA compassionate leave !
Where as this guy & others like him are incapable of having compassion for anyone, or that's what I believe from the offense he was convicted of.

[Proteas]

At 8/20/09 01:00 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I meant that the people in charge of the correctional facility, have let him go home to die. AKA compassionate leave !

I understood what you meant. What I don't understand is how keeping this guy locked up would make the prison staff worse than him or on his level in terms of moral standing.

Europe abolished the death penalty because it was to barbaric, now they won't even enforce life in prison because it's not a compassionate thing to do? What's the deal?

[Elfer]

At 8/20/09 01:09 PM, Proteas wrote: I understood what you meant. What I don't understand is how keeping this guy locked up would make the prison staff worse than him or on his level in terms of moral standing.

Obviously it's not as bad, but there's a difference between trying to have a good society and trying to be a little better than terrorists.

[Proteas]

At 8/20/09 01:28 PM, Elfer wrote: Obviously it's not as bad, but there's a difference between trying to have a good society and trying to be a little better than terrorists.

What good is a society that doesn't make good on it's promises?

[Elfer]

At 8/20/09 01:32 PM, Proteas wrote: What good is a society that doesn't make good on it's promises?

Which promises? There have always been exceptions for sentences on compassionate grounds in cases of terminal illness. This is not the first time it's happened, and it's an expected provision of a life sentence.

[animehater]

What ever happened to the phrase "Only leaving prison in a body bag"? I don't care if he had ten different kinds of cancer he should die pissing blood in a prison hospital bed not out in the open feeling the sunshine on his face before he goes.

[Elfer]

At 8/20/09 01:43 PM, animehater wrote: What ever happened to the phrase "Only leaving prison in a body bag"? I don't care if he had ten different kinds of cancer he should die pissing blood in a prison hospital bed not out in the open feeling the sunshine on his face before he goes.

So you think the state should foot the bill for him instead of his family, simply for the purpose of revenge?

[Proteas]

At 8/20/09 01:34 PM, Elfer wrote: Which promises?

The promise of life in prison. What good is handing down such a sentence if you're just going to "compasionately" overturn it later on? What makes this guy so special? Why is he getting released over someone like Susan Atkins?

There have always been exceptions for sentences on compassionate grounds in cases of terminal illness.

I'm looking through google and wikipedia right now, I honestly am... and I'm not finding a THING to support this claim beyond a little snippet from the Government of Australia's website.

At 8/20/09 01:47 PM, Elfer wrote: So you think the state should foot the bill for him instead of his family, simply for the purpose of revenge?

Isn't that the oft-repeated logic behind life in prison? You'd sooner let them rot in prison in misery for the rest of their life, regretting their mistakes, then allow them the freedom of death through lethal injection?

[animehater]

At 8/20/09 01:47 PM, Elfer wrote: So you think the state should foot the bill for him instead of his family, simply for the purpose of revenge?

Was he not supposed to spend the rest of his life there? It's not revenge it's just the way things should work.

[zephiran]

At 8/20/09 02:15 PM, animehater wrote:

Was he not supposed to spend the rest of his life there?

He was sentenced to life in prison, was he not? Which translates to what, 15 years? Life in prison doesn´t mean "imprisoned until dead" anymore, it just means "a long time in prison"...

[animehater]

At 8/20/09 02:30 PM, zephiran wrote: it just means "a long time in prison"...

Then what the hell is the point of prison at all in Europe?

[Jon-86]

I wonder why the UK never went to war with Libya?

I bet that Europe is thinking about re-instating the death penalty so monsters like him will never go free again.

Aye because Britain is Europe, Jesus christ... And the people that done this are not monsters. The media only call them monsters so we feel better about ourselves. The scary thing is they are just people like any one of us.

But no, nobody wants to bring the death penalty back, that hadn't even crossed my mind until I read it their.

[Memorize]

Maybe I should grow my own military, incite racial hatred and oppression while killing 6 million Jews; only to get arrested and sentenced to life in Europe.

Hey, if I ever cancer due to old age, they'll just let me free!

[OddlyPoetic]

True, but this man is still going to suffer. I mean shit, he's being let out early because they fucking pity him. Like Proteas Said, he's got what, 3 months to live? Probably aren't going to be entirely too pleasent. He's harmless and his days are numbered. What could he possibly due to anyone?

[D2Kvirus]

The first thought a lot of Britons have had is how Ronnie Biggs was released from prison a few weeks ago on compassionate leave because he was knocking at death's door...and somehow recovered remarkably quickly once released.

As a result, there's a lot of people expecting to see him perform cartwheels on the tarmac in Libya.

[zephiran]

At 8/20/09 02:35 PM, animehater wrote:

At 8/20/09 02:30 PM, zephiran wrote: it just means "a long time in prison"...

Then what the hell is the point of prison at all in Europe?

Rehabilitation. Convicts are supposed to go straight and narrow after a few years of imprisonment, so that they can become a productive part of society.

I think.

[Elfer]

At 8/20/09 01:54 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/20/09 01:34 PM, Elfer wrote: Which promises?

The promise of life in prison. What good is handing down such a sentence if you're just going to "compasionately" overturn it later on?

Because the guy is going to die anyway? The purpose of a sentence is to remove a dangerous element from society until the point which it is no longer dangerous. In the case of a life sentence, this essentially means that the person is presumed to be dangerous until the point that they're no longer able to do more crime stuff.

Something tells me that having been gone for eight years, and with cancer that will kill him inside of three months, this guy is going to be doing fuck all until he dies an excruciating death.

What makes this guy so special? Why is he getting released over someone like Susan Atkins?

Because he was imprisoned in Scotland, which is a country more prone to releasing people on compassionate grounds? I never said that the denial of Susan Atkins' request was justified.

There have always been exceptions for sentences on compassionate grounds in cases of terminal illness.

I'm looking through google and wikipedia right now, I honestly am... and I'm not finding a THING to support this claim beyond a little snippet from the Government of Australia's website.

Here's the law from California, it was the easiest for me to find. I'm sure there's a similar provision under Scottish law, otherwise this release would be illegal.

In fact, Here it is. This act existed when the person in question was imprisoned, so there's no "breaking of a promise" here.

Isn't that the oft-repeated logic behind life in prison? You'd sooner let them rot in prison in misery for the rest of their life, regretting their mistakes, then allow them the freedom of death through lethal injection?

No, the logic behind life in prison is that the person is highly unlikely to fix their fucked up behaviour. The reason we don't "allow them the freedom of death" is because it creates HUGE liability in cases of wrongful conviction. You can release someone from prison, but it's really really hard to un-kill them.

[OddlyPoetic]

At 8/20/09 02:15 PM, animehater wrote:

At 8/20/09 01:47 PM, Elfer wrote: So you think the state should foot the bill for him instead of his family, simply for the purpose of revenge?

Was he not supposed to spend the rest of his life there? It's not revenge it's just the way things should work.

No. He wasn't. A life sentence doesn't mean spending the rest of your life there. It's the same in the United States.

[Proteas]

At 8/20/09 04:39 PM, Elfer wrote: Something tells me that having been gone for eight years, and with cancer that will kill him inside of three months, this guy is going to be doing fuck all until he dies an excruciating death.

I don't know if you've seen the news, but that guy was able to get off the plane under his own power with a modicum of assistance from guards. He's still physically viable to a point, and barring the cancer having gotten into his brain, probably still mentally viable as well. As such, he's still a threat. Might not be one for much longer, but I think he should only have gone home if he had to be CARRIED out of that plane with a ventilator tube shoved down his throat so he couldn't talk.

In fact, Here it is. This act existed when the person in question was imprisoned, so there's no "breaking of a promise" here.

I believe the sentence was life in prison, was it not?

So unless he's being moved to a Libyan prison or prison run hospital, how exactly is this a promise kept?

No, the logic behind life in prison is that the person is highly unlikely to fix their fucked up behaviour. The reason we don't "allow them the freedom of death" is because it creates HUGE liability in cases of wrongful conviction. You can release someone from prison, but it's really really hard to un-kill them.

Really? I could have swore you at one point in time said they were supposed to rot and ruminate over your actions. Somebody who frequents this board on a regular basis did.

sure as hell wasn't me... I'm in favor of the old west style hanging myself. Works in Japan.

[Mr-Pope]

Erm, are people aware that he didn't actually do it?

Because, you know, he didn't.

Seems like quite an important bit of information that's getting passed over.

Also fair play to the Scotch, not bowing to Yank pressure.

[Sweeper128]

At 8/20/09 06:33 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: Also fair play to the Scotch, not bowing to Yank pressure.

Nice to know we're drinks.

First things first. I am Scottish and I was born two years exactly after the Bombings. I live at the polar opposite of Scotland from Lockerbie. Now I've already ranted a bit due to a certain boycottscotland.com website, but the thing is; the man is dying. I'd rather release someone back into their own country to die a slow and excruciating death than to have the same man holed up in piss-poor prison conditions. We have his pride, but give him what little dignity he has left.

I understand that the release could be connected to BP and strengthening ties to Libya, but most of us Scots don't care about that. We need local jobs and money to get out the recession. We don't need an American backlash due to an understandable, yet unpopular choice chosen by MSP Kenny McAskill.

Sorry, that was my anger at boycottscotland.com

Anyway, he may or may not be guilty, and there are a mass of people in Edinburgh already for the Fringe, a Royal Mile away from the Scottish Parliament. Bound to be a protest tomorrow, instead of comedy gigs.

[hansari]

At 8/20/09 04:39 PM, Elfer wrote: The purpose of a sentence is to remove a dangerous element from society until the point which it is no longer dangerous. In the case of a life sentence, this essentially means that the person is presumed to be dangerous until the point that they're no longer able to do more crime stuff.

Thats the purpose of the court systems?! To separate us from dangerous people?

What happened to carrying out justice? Thats the whole reason we have these legal institutions. Lest we all start running around like vigilantes...

At 8/20/09 04:39 PM, Elfer wrote: Something tells me that having been gone for eight years, and with cancer that will kill him inside of three months, this guy is going to be doing fuck all until he dies an excruciating death.

You realize that this man did not do it alone? He kept his mouth shut about his accomplices, and as such, those men got away scot-free. (OH! THE PUN!!!!)

"Until 2003 Libya had never formally admitted carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. On 16 August 2003 Libya formally admitted responsibility for Pan Am Flight 103 in a letter presented to the president of the United Nations Security Council. Felicity Barringer of The New York Times said that the letter had "general language that lacked any expression of remorse" for the people killed in the bombing.[52] The letter stated that it "accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials"."

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/s c7868.doc.htm

At 8/20/09 04:39 PM, Elfer wrote: There have always been exceptions for sentences on compassionate grounds in cases of terminal illness.

Can you give me an example of a mass murderer released due terminal illness. The man who made the release decision on CNN wasn't able to...

At 8/20/09 04:39 PM, Elfer wrote: No, the logic behind life in prison is that the person is highly unlikely to fix their fucked up behaviour.

Funny, cause Bernie Madoff just ripped off people out of their life savings and he got 150 years in jail. (essentially a life prison).

Are you saying the reason he hasn't been released was because they are sure he will con people again?

And don't say American justice is different from scottish...Pan AM had American victims...

At 8/20/09 06:33 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: Also fair play to the Scotch, not bowing to Yank pressure.

Dipshit. Obama did not instill any pressure. He even said the man deserves "house arrest" showing just how out of touch he is on this terrorist attack.

At 8/20/09 06:59 PM, Sweeper128 wrote: I understand that the release could be connected to BP and strengthening ties to Libya, but most of us Scots don't care about that. We need local jobs and money to get out the recession. We don't need an American backlash due to an understandable, yet unpopular choice chosen by MSP Kenny McAskill.

Guess you wouldn't speak differently if you were one of the victims families huh?

BTW, Libya has admitted ties to the attack, but they never apologized for it. They stand behind the belief you Scots are worthless :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwFsLEkOW Ew

[Sweeper128]

At 8/20/09 07:12 PM, hansari wrote:

At 8/20/09 06:59 PM, Sweeper128 wrote: I understand that the release could be connected to BP and strengthening ties to Libya, but most of us Scots don't care about that. We need local jobs and money to get out the recession. We don't need an American backlash due to an understandable, yet unpopular choice chosen by MSP Kenny McAskill.

Guess you wouldn't speak differently if you were one of the victims families huh?

Of course I would, but I would be less rational, certainly livid at the idea of this man going free. I watched the news a few days ago, and the mother of one of the passengers who died seemed very irrational and practically hysterical. Yes I understand she's lost her child (such ideas haunt me, and I sadly haven't even been close to a lady) but without rationality , you lose judgment. Without judgment, you lose humanity. It was inhumane what the bomber did, but at least the country where he was imprisoned didn't stoop to his level of inhumanity.

BTW, Libya has admitted ties to the attack, but they never apologized for it. They stand behind the belief you Scots are worthless :P

Noes! I am not! My mother says I'm special. Or at least she did. <_<

[All-American-Badass]

At 8/20/09 03:46 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: True, but this man is still going to suffer. I mean shit, he's being let out early because they fucking pity him. Like Proteas Said, he's got what, 3 months to live? Probably aren't going to be entirely too pleasent. He's harmless and his days are numbered. What could he possibly due to anyone?

I really don't see why they can't keep him in jail for at least another month and a half if he's gonna end up dying in 3 months anyway. Im sure that extra time he could've been in jail he could've muster just enough ambition to mug someone at least, then he'll die awaiting trial.

[hansari]

At 8/20/09 07:29 PM, Sweeper128 wrote: It was inhumane what the bomber did, but at least the country where he was imprisoned didn't stoop to his level of inhumanity.

I fail to see what is "inhumane" about letting a mass-murderer waste away in a prison cell.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/treatm entprisoners.htm

[fli]

They should give him the best option so that he could end his life without any pain... but keep him in prison.

He shouldn't go at all because his crime was so atrocious.
We shouldn't make him suffer, but we should keep him in prison until he dies.