UK: Terminally Ill Lockerbie Bomber Released

Well, here's hoping this guy is a bit more terminally ill than Ronnie Biggs turned out to be.

If you are going to comment on this case perhaps you should read this as well.   Legal systems can become corrupted and flawed as people have already commented.  You can make a decision on your own but there was a lot of shady business around this case and I am not convinced that he got a truly fair trail. 

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/590/The_Lockerbie_case_and_the_corruption_of_justice%2C.html

Yeah. Even from a superficial reading of this case, you suspect that the guilty parties (i.e. the Syrians, egged on by Iran) got away with this a long time ago.

Eh, I am probably a bleeding heart, but this is something different.  This move seems cynical on the UK government's part. 

It seems that Brits aren't united in the idea that it was time for this guy to be sent home.

Just a small point, but it was the Scottish Government, not the UK. There is quite a strong body of opinion here, which includes relatives of the British victims, that the trial and conviction were at best unsafe. Some of this may have become clearer at the 2nd appeal, but he was required to drop this before his release could be considered. None of which will help relatives of those murdered feel any sense of justice having been done.

Eh, I am probably a bleeding heart, but this is something different.  This move seems cynical on the UK government's part. 

It seems that Brits aren't united in the idea that it was time for this guy to be sent home.

It was a decision of the Scottish Government, not the UK Government. Scotland has a separate criminal justice system than the rest of the UK.

Opinion polls seem to be massively against the decision.

If you believe that it's something to do with gas and oil, then it's the UK government, and the deal was probably made in 2007 by Blair.  That's the cynical bit.

If you are going to comment on this case perhaps you should read this as well.   Legal systems can become corrupted and flawed as people have already commented.  You can make a decision on your own but there was a lot of shady business around this case and I am not convinced that he got a truly fair trail. 

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/590/The_Lockerbie_case_and_the_corruption_of_justice%2C.html

The point is, he was found guilty. Unless this is overturned through the appeals process he should serve his sentence like anyone else found guilty of a crime. Other people who have been victims of miscarriages of justice have had to. The soundness of the conviction is an entirely separate matter to whether he should have been released on compassionate grounds.

I don't agree with the guy being released however many people (including some victims families) are of the view that he was not guilty of the crime in the firstplace. He would not have been granted grounds to appeal (for a second time) unless there was new evidence that possibly cast doubt on his conviction.

Pure theory on my part but if there was a chance of new evidence showing him innocent then maybe the release on compassionate grounds (subject to him dropping his second appeal) may have been viewed as a better option...just a thought.

That would be an irrelevant consideration and make the compassionate release decision even more dodgy than some people think his conviction was. I can't emphasise enough - grounds for appeal have nothing to do with compassionate release.

If that was the case why did he have to drop his appeal before he could be released on compassionate grounds. It appears that the two are inextricably linked in this case.

According to what his own legal representative said on Channel 4 news last night there was no deal and he dropped the appeal because he is too ill to go ahead with it.  So I guess it depends how honest you think his lawyer is.

I think this was a big mistake and he should have died in jail.

I'm getting really frustrated with all the readers comments in the news (and yes I know I should just not look) saying things along the lines that 'well at least we stood up to the Americans and let them know they can't bully us' or 'American politicians should keep their noses out of this.' While I understand the sentiment, this really seems like the wrong issue to apply that to, especially considering that the majority of the victims were American.

But those really do seem to be the minority. It definitely seems that most Scots and Brits are not in support of this at all. I was sort of on the fence about it, but seeing the arrival in Libya really disturbed me. And watching and interview with Kenny MacAskill on Channel 4 news just demonstrated to me that his logic regarding this was completely faulty (unless, of course, it was about something else).

ETA: Oh, and the comments from some Americans on those sites (Have Your Say, etc) along the lines of 'this just shows that Europeans have no backbone' or 'I'm cancelling my trip to Scotland' are equally frustrating.

That would be an irrelevant consideration and make the compassionate release decision even more dodgy than some people think his conviction was. I can't emphasise enough - grounds for appeal have nothing to do with compassionate release.

Don't they? I'm not so sure.

It would seem that this was a very unsafe conviction - he was reputed to have placed the bomb on the plance in Malta I believe, however there was no evidence of that but there was evidence of a breakin at Heathrow where it stopped off at. There was considerable pressure for a conviction and I think both the UK and US governments are complicite in this.
There was an interesting debate on Radio 5 last week about this and they said that whilst the US government were making the right noises in public - they weren't putting anywhere near the pressure on that they could to prevent the release.
I think that a deal was done to say he could be released if the appeal was dropped, because if an appeal happened it could prove extremely embarassing to both countries, also there's a little matter of both wanting oil rights.

I'm getting really frustrated with all the readers comments in the news (and yes I know I should just not look) saying things along the lines that 'well at least we stood up to the Americans and let them know they can't bully us' or 'American politicians should keep their noses out of this.' While I understand the sentiment, this really seems like the wrong issue to apply that to, especially considering that the majority of the victims were American.

But those really do seem to be the minority. It definitely seems that most Scots and Brits are not in support of this at all. I was sort of on the fence about it, but seeing the arrival in Libya really disturbed me. And watching and interview with Kenny MacAskill on Channel 4 news just demonstrated to me that his logic regarding this was completely faulty (unless, of course, it was about something else).

ETA: Oh, and the comments from some Americans on those sites (Have Your Say, etc) along the lines of 'this just shows that Europeans have no backbone' or 'I'm cancelling my trip to Scotland' are equally frustrating.

That's why I don't read the comment section of any article unless I am prepared for a bunch of opinions that might be upsetting.  People have the right to express their opinions, but I don't need the stress of listening to their very special viewpoints.  I swear if they opened the comment section on the best recipes for Autumn themed biscuits, the conversation would eventually bring the US, New Labour, Margaret Thatcher, Immigrants, Polish people, Communists, Fascists, and Hitler.

I sometimes worry about the comments, but then if people are using the internet comment section to base their opinions about Americans, immigration, and how to vote, they probably won't listen to reasoned debate anyway.