Scotland Releases Lockerbie bomber to Libya

[BTCC Fan#1]

Political will?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=latestnews

I maintain an extremely cynical suspicion that Brown was so careful to emphasise this was 'a decision for the Scottish Government' so Labour in Scotland could come out and say that if they'd been in power this would not have happened.. I understand Labour are already planning on fighting the upcoming by-election in Glasgow on a 'The SNP are weak on law and order' platform.

[BDunnell]

I work off the law. The law says he's still guilty. He has not been aquited of the charges. If, as you say, it's so clear that he was not involved. Then why not clear his name? I don't buy this no political will stuff. Where does political will come from ... the people. I think the people of the World all want to see the perpetrators of this crime behind bars. No one has any particular attachment to THIS guy being behind bars.

I am very surprised indeed that you don't understand why I feel there was/is no political will to look into the whole thing again - I have explained it quite clearly. By the end of the 1990s, the UK and other countries wanted to be able to trade with Libya. Therefore it was deemed desirable to make efforts to clear certain matters up, such as Lockerbie and the killing of Yvonne Blakelock. Certain 'uncomfortable' matters relating to these cases, such as elements of the evidence produced, were quite conveniently swept under the carpet. The West became friendly with Libya once again and we are now trading quite happily. Politicians in all sorts of countries have no wish to upset this.

Then there's your answer as to why he should be in jail still. Well being or sickness should have no bearing on criminal convictions. How can you be so certain that his appeal would have been rejected for the wrong reasons? Perhaps this man is actually guilty. Or perhaps the legal system might actually work, and clear him.

You can't just start letting people out of jail because you think, or feel that they are innocent. The system will collapse under it's own weight at that point.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that he should have been released because he might be innocent? Nowhere. On the contrary, I am in two minds about whether the decision was right or wrong. On balance, it would clearly be preferable if he were still in jail awaiting an appeal, not that any appeal would have ever released him, even if he hadn't committed the crime.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I maintain an extremely cynical suspicion that Brown was so careful to emphasise this was 'a decision for the Scottish Government' so Labour in Scotland could come out and say that if they'd been in power this would not have happened.. I understand Labour are already planning on fighting the upcoming by-election in Glasgow on a 'The SNP are weak on law and order' platform.

It is a head scratcher for sure. Labour usually advocates this sort of mercy for inmates....but even they see the point in keeping someone behind bars who MAY have been involved in killing 271 people and was convicted of it in any case.

[BDunnell]

I maintain an extremely cynical suspicion that Brown was so careful to emphasise this was 'a decision for the Scottish Government' so Labour in Scotland could come out and say that if they'd been in power this would not have happened.. I understand Labour are already planning on fighting the upcoming by-election in Glasgow on a 'The SNP are weak on law and order' platform.

Both they and the Lib Dems have done exactly the same thing. And both have totally over-simplified a very complex situation in which there are few rights or wrongs.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am very surprised indeed that you don't understand why I feel there was/is no political will to look into the whole thing again - I have explained it quite clearly. By the end of the 1990s, the UK and other countries wanted to be able to trade with Libya. Therefore it was deemed desirable to make efforts to clear certain matters up, such as Lockerbie and the killing of Yvonne Blakelock. Certain 'uncomfortable' matters relating to these cases, such as elements of the evidence produced, were quite conveniently swept under the carpet. The West became friendly with Libya once again and we are now trading quite happily. Politicians in all sorts of countries have no wish to upset this.
.

This is what irritates me Ben. Trade with Libya? That is oil.....and you guys in Europe always accuse the Americans of dealing with the devil for oil and starting wars over it, yet the UK is desparate for this trade they would just look the other way on the facts of cases like Blakelock and the Lockerbie bombing? I would say your gov't''s are every bit as cynical and callous as the Yanks.

Except I wont, and I suspect there is much we don't know, but I still don't grasp what the Scot's were thinking onthis one.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242009...ail_186175.htm

Well now Bernie Madoff has cancer. I'm gonna go on record right here saying that he didn't do it, he was framed by his scheming wife and kids, he only took the fall to save them.

Therefore, on compasionate grounds he should be let go.

Anyone see anything wrong with that?

(Just kidding by the way, he's guilty as hell. His wife and kids too)

Oh right now there is some one out there advocating Bernie should be allowed to die with his family. In Scotland, this jerk would be walking with that idiot justice minister in charge.

Most Scots I suspect are NOT happy with this mess. Then there are people like Daniel who like to argue that compassion for a killer makes us better than him. Leaving his sorry carcass in jail makes us better than him too...

[BTCC Fan#1]

Both they and the Lib Dems have done exactly the same thing. And both have totally over-simplified a very complex situation in which there are few rights or wrongs.

I was pretty unimpressed with what the usually pretty astute Nick Clegg had to say on the matter this morning, the old adage 'if you've got nothing useful to say don't say it at all' did spring to mind..

[BDunnell]

See...I can get what Daniel and Ben are driving at. Letting a man in prison who has a fatal illness go is a humane thing to do if he robbed a bank, or was in for fraud, or was just some petty criminal. This man was convicted of putting a bomb on a 747 and killing 271 people. 271. He was CONVICTED of it. I don't care if you are in Scotland or New Jersey, that is mass murder. Whether he may not have been guilty or not we will NEVER really know, but giving him back to Libya only makes sense if there is ample evidence that an appeal of his conviction had a very good chance of going through. We do NOT have this. Why is it every convicted criminal now seems to have advocates around believing he didn't do it? someone put that bomb on the airplane and Libya coughed up this mook only after a lot of international pressure and negotiation. His name was on the list of people wanted for questioning by the British authorities because there was evidence he was THERE. He wasn't some Libyan Quaddafi coughed up at random.

If he didn't do it, he must have had some involvement and until his role was clairfied, I still would see no reason to release him. You do not release people pending appeal who were involved in killing 271 INNOCENT people. I don't care where they came from, where he is from or the geopolitical BS around it.

This wasn't mail fraud or shoplifting he was in nick for, it was mass murder.

Victory for the terrorists? Judging by the happy faces in Tripoli when this guy got off the airplane, I would have to say some terrorist somewhere doesn't see this as compassion, he is thinking "those people in the West are so weak". We keep forgetting people who do this sort of thing are not wired like us...they see any sign of compassion towards them or Islam as a sign of weakness. They do not see it as we see it, which is being civilized and a sign of friendship. People who put bombs on planes for political reasons are NOT civilized and do not respect compassion, so letting this man go doesn't do anything but assuage the guilt of liberals who feel he may have been railroaded. I think he may have been too, but he was going to sit in jail with my medical system keeping him alive until we got to the bottom of it, NOT sitting in Tripoli getting cheers...

I don't think it assuages anyone's guilt. This is not an issue about which you can place people into the usual camps - 'liberals' think one thing, 'right-wingers' another - as much as you may like to do so. One thing on which I am clear is that I for one, not being beset by terrorist-related paranoia, do not feel in any way endangered by his release. I am, however, not sure that it was the right thing to do, just as I was dead against the release of Ronnie Biggs on compassionate grounds.

[chuck34]

I am very surprised indeed that you don't understand why I feel there was/is no political will to look into the whole thing again - I have explained it quite clearly. By the end of the 1990s, the UK and other countries wanted to be able to trade with Libya. Therefore it was deemed desirable to make efforts to clear certain matters up, such as Lockerbie and the killing of Yvonne Blakelock. Certain 'uncomfortable' matters relating to these cases, such as elements of the evidence produced, were quite conveniently swept under the carpet. The West became friendly with Libya once again and we are now trading quite happily. Politicians in all sorts of countries have no wish to upset this.

You're right I don't understand your basis of your no political will stance. The US and UK were putting pressure on Libya to "clean up their act" in order to start trading. It was the US and UK that were dictating terms to Libya in this whole deal. Therefore we were in a position to ask for a free and fair trial of the "real" perpetrators. We still have that upper-hand. Plus the moral high ground to demand the actual terrorist(s) be tried in a court of law. How would demanding such a thing (especially if this guy is cleared) change anything with our current relationship with Libya?

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that he should have been released because he might be innocent? Nowhere. On the contrary, I am in two minds about whether the decision was right or wrong. On balance, it would clearly be preferable if he were still in jail awaiting an appeal, not that any appeal would have ever released him, even if he hadn't committed the crime.

Now I'm really confused. It sure seems to me that you have been taking the position that he was probably innocent anyway, so releasing him for "compassion" makes sence. See my earlier post where I asked for clarification of your position. I wasn't corrected so I assumed my characterization of your position was correct. If it's not, please correct me.

[chuck34]

Oh right now there is some one out there advocating Bernie should be allowed to die with his family. In Scotland, this jerk would be walking with that idiot justice minister in charge.

Most Scots I suspect are NOT happy with this mess. Then there are people like Daniel who like to argue that compassion for a killer makes us better than him. Leaving his sorry carcass in jail makes us better than him too...

As I said earlier, the compassionate thing to do would be to give this guy care, ease his suffering, and allow his family to visit him in jail. That is the compassionate, yet rational response when a convicted mass murderer becomes termanally ill in prision.

And shows MUCH more compassion than he did to his victims.