Russethouse Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8213077.stmWas the Scottish justice secretary right to let him go back to Libya ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Trunk Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 The US government released Lt William Calley, the officer who presided over the massacre of over 350 Vietnamese villagers at My Lai, after only 3 years of a life sentence. But then, Vietnamese villagers have little influence in Washington.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 There seems to be some doubt as to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's involment in the plot to bring down the plane. If it had gone to appeal and he had won that would have been more embarassing. Some one was guilty and holding a Libyian because he is a Libyian does not make that right.A tough call either way but at least Scotland stood firm against America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 My Lai, refusing to sign up so US soldiers can be prosecuted for war crimes in either Gulf War or Afghanistan (overturned by Obama), Guantanamo Bay.Pots and kettles come to mind and as mentioned, there are already substantial grounds for thinking this guy may actually not be guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonrouge Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I have let us say a relationship with the law. Always had problems in understanding the trial process but of course none of us have seen the evidence.However there is it appears some doubts as to his involvement.I say that it should have gone two ways.The first (and if his illness had allowed) was to the matter to go to appeal for that is the system in our Common Law.Secondly if the Scots have a system of compassionate grounds (that is to say anyone with less than three months to live is released) then so be it provided there is precedent for it and it has not been introduced just simply that he is Lybian and we have relationship with that state.If the Justice Secretary had grounds then he was right to stand four square against the USA.Now I am going to say something that perhaps I will get shot down on.The Scottish Justice Secretary says he has received medical advice that the individual has less than three months to live.Can they be that precise?But I have doubts over this whole issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceni Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Ernest Saunders ? Not that he committed a real crime though.John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalpa Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 There may be doubts over the conviction but until those doubts are converted into a successful appeal, he was originally found guilty. Until a successful appeal, he should have remained in prison. Any prisoner who contracts a terminal illness while serving a sentence may therefore have to die in prison. Demonstrations of compassion are then best made by allowing family and friends less restricted access to the person during their last weeks of life, not releasing the prisoner. In this particular case, I suspect dying in prison would have turned the man into some form of martyr so the expedient (and cheaper) if not right thing to do was send him back to Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Chris Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 He was found guilty by a Scottish court in the Netherlands. He was sentenced, and unless the sentence was successfully appealed against, it should have been served, in full (or until his death).Letting people off for "compassionate" reasons, particularly in the cases of crimes of this magnitude sends out all the wrong signals. It rather lessens the value of the outrage and misery suffered by the families of the victims, who expected justice to prevail (not unreasonably).As for the American involvement, I believe the vast majority of the victims were American, so why shouldn't they have a voice? Was there not an agreement at the original trial that if convicted, Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland? So much for Anglo/US agreements. I have little time for Obama, but on this occasion I think he makes a valid point.The UK has gone soft on the wrong people, and it's all part of the spiral into decay and demoralisation brought about by the sad and sorry socialist/marxist government which it has foisted upon itself.My opinion - there are bound to be detractors...Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 And for the main ChrisnJulie you are quite possibly right. Except for the American bit IMO, it took place in Scotland and therefore is their jurisdiction without reference to America. The problem is he is unlikely to live long enough to post the appeal so the important evidence that may prove or disprove inocents or guilt may never be heard.On another point not related to this we went to war on a nation because of weapon's of mass destruction that did not exist. (America supplied that information) Following your thought pattern The Iraq people should be able to prosecute the Americans and the British and others for war crimes.Lets not forget OJ Simpson was tried and found innocent so that is not much to go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 IMHO as he was found guilty he should have served his sentence to the end. It's not up to the Scottish secretary to assume that an appeal would be sucessful and if guilty Megrahi certainly showed the victims no compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardian Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 [quote user="Russethouse"] IMHO as he was found guilty he should have served his sentence to the end. It's not up to the Scottish secretary to assume that an appeal would be sucessful and if guilty Megrahi certainly showed the victims no compassion.[/quote]Sums up my view concisely.Just to add to that:I deprecate the 'leakage' of the decision as long as a week ago. Either someone couldn't keep their mouth shut, or the BBC made a good guess, or nobody leaked and the BBC ran an enormous risk of egg on the proverbial faceRonnie Biggs? The original decision made by Jack Straw was not to release him: whilst his was a major crime, how does it stand against the calculated murder of 270 people? No consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I follow your point RH. What surpised me is some of the victims families who sat through the trials and therefore heard all the evidence don't believe he was guilty. If the Scotish secretary is assuming an appeal would have been sucessful, does he know something?It is a very mixed up system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 I think there is possibly new evidence regarding a break in to the Pan Am area at Heathrow at the time of the bombing, which wasn't investigated at the time. I know that Jim Swire (victims father) never thought he was guilty and its reported in a local paper today that another of the victims fathers (who lived in the UK) only saw Megrahi as a pawn, and wanted to go go after the real plotters. However these are really side issues, the guy had been found guilty and until a successful appeal, in my view should have stayed put. I suspect that the appeal was withdrawn because it would have kept him prison longer.....If the Scottish Secretary was convinced that the new evidence made the guilty verdict unsafe then he should have given that as a reason along with compassionate grounds, he chose not to.PS Gardian, No consistency because Ronald Biggs was in England, the decision as made by the Home Secretary and Megrahi was in Scotland where the decision was made by the Scottish secretary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 [quote user="Russethouse"] However these are really side issues, the guy had been found guilty and until a successful appeal, in my view should have stayed put. I suspect that the appeal was withdrawn because it would have kept him prison longer.....[/quote]True, that is the due process.I feel it was a climb down to save embbarrasment in the diplomatic sense. Quote: Sir Tam Dalyell, a member of Great Britain's House of Commons from 1962 to 2005, calling al-Megrahi "the victim of one of the most spectacular (and expensive) miscarriages of justice in history" (The Times of London, Oct. 31, 2008) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelligan Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Is it possible that some in power might not wish an appeal to be heard? That they consider it "better all round" if they please the Libyans, appear to be just and compassionate, maintain the illusion that "we got the right man" and that the real culprits did not get away with it...? I do not wish to appear cynical but I do not have much faith in the integrity of the "Justice System" (in any state, at any period of human history). I envy anyone who does...[:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 [quote user="teapot"][quote user="Russethouse"] However these are really side issues, the guy had been found guilty and until a successful appeal, in my view should have stayed put. I suspect that the appeal was withdrawn because it would have kept him prison longer.....[/quote]True, that is the due process.I feel it was a climb down to save embbarrasment in the diplomatic sense. Quote: Sir Tam Dalyell, a member of Great Britain's House of Commons from 1962 to 2005, calling al-Megrahi "the victim of one of the most spectacular (and expensive) miscarriages of justice in history" (The Times of London, Oct. 31, 2008)[/quote] I think over the years several people have doubted the verdict, however the legal verdict it was. If the Scottish Secretary had doubts about the integrity of that decision it would have been helpful to sight that in his statementAnd surely there has been time for more than one appeal ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Those are the parts that raise the questions, To doubt your own legal system would take a very brave person. Allowing it to go to appeal again, due process (no embbarrasment), possible embbarrasment later though.It does seem to take a long time to raise appeals, consider the cases of the women wrongly imprisoned for killing their children on the say so of an expert doctor who was later booted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceni Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 And now the FCO is reviewing Randy Andy's proposed trade promoting trip to Libya next month.I was never a fan of devolution but perhaps on this occasion it seems a good idea.John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braco Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Don’t you just love the hypocrisy. US naval war criminals shoot down an Iranian air bus = reasonable mistake. Libyan patsy release = debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Oh dear Chris and just when you seemed to be doing so well. OK, you don't care for Obama (probably too far to the left for you) but where are the Marxists in the UK Government? You obviously know how to spot a Marxist so perhaps you could share that insight with us?I was at Uni with a substantial number of the current Commons (and some of the Lords) and there were very few of them even in the Labour Group because it was far too left wing and although the Uni had a serious reputation for left wing activism, most of the people there were Tories. And for sure, after a lifetime of support for what could be described as the hard left, I don't recall seeing many of the current leaders at any seriously left wing rallies for many years tho a few may have been more actively left wing in their youth. For sure, many of them are hardly Socialist now, let alone Marxist.And when those little rascals in those evil capitalist banks brought the world's economy to its knees, did the UK Government nationalise the lot? No, they temporarily bought stakes, some larger than others, in some of the banks with a view to selling them back asap but if they were really Marxists that would have been the time to take firm action to actually undermine the capitalist system. So Chris, how do we spot them - I know, they go to the Groucho Club because if any of the current UK Government are Marxist or even hard line Socialists, the majority of them follow the Marx Brothers politics, not dear departed Karl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Chris Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Well, you don't need to spot them. If you've any interest in politics and/or follow the better press, the answers are there for all to see.Without setting down a long list, how about G Bruin himself, Mr. Darling, Millipede and "Bumbling" Bob Ainsworth for starters.There has been a long (and well known) association between the marxists and the labour partyIt's fairly common knowledge what most of them were up to in their "student" days and afterwards, which associations they belonged to, the company they kept, and their leftist and communist leanings.Together they have systematically destroyed what used to be a great country.I have no particular political leanings, Tony, but I assume from your comments that you must be a labour supporter. If so, then it's probably partly down to you that the UK is in the parlous state it's in.I suggest you do a little reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelligan Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 ...any more Big Endians (or should that be Little Endians ?[8-)]) want to comment..? I thought this thread was about Lockerbie....[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boiling a frog Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 A recently departed member of this forum thinks that it is all a masonic conspiracy and that there is nothing wrong with Mr Al Megrahi.[:@] These views are expressed on a forum whch is "" a very nice place"" and not "" like Complete France where mods are so biased that they pull any thread that gives views they do not like, and allow personal threats and even whole threads designed to personally mock/bully people. Sad and pathetic."" Unfortunatly that particular forum where she expresses these views has pulled the subject of Mr megrahi,s release because it might upset some people [:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 Please tells me thats a joke BAF...[8-)]Edit - I guess the members will have to come here for 'intelligent 'conversation about it then [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegie Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 [quote user="Russethouse"] IMHO as he was found guilty he should have served his sentence to the end. It's not up to the Scottish secretary to assume that an appeal would be sucessful and if guilty Megrahi certainly showed the victims no compassion.[/quote]And you are making the assumption that the decision to release Megrahi was because of an appeal. The Scottish Secretary forcefully made the point that Megrahi had shown no compassion to his victims but that did not preclude the showing of compassion towards Megrahi.Whether one agrees with the decision or not, IMHO it was MacAskill's to make and that should be respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now