UK: Terminally Ill Lockerbie Bomber Released

I can't emphasise enough - grounds for appeal have nothing to do with compassionate release.

That's true, but if he hadn't been granted compassionate release he would presumably have applied to transfer to a Libyan prison. That would have been refused if the case was still under appeal.
I found some information on the BBC website regarding numbers of prisoners released on medical grounds. In England and Wales 48 in the last 5 years, in Scotland 23 in the last 9 years, with 7 refused. It would be interesting to know if the criteria applied (ie. automatic release if medical opinion is less than 3 months to live, regardless of crime or remorse) have been consistent in every case. If so it would make this case understandable, although upsetting to a lot of people. If not, it makes it more questionable.

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.

Britwife, my post was more directed toward the people who formed an opinion about this man without realizing he most likely didn't get a fair trail... but on to what you have mentioned..

Unless this is overturned through the appeals process

 That is just it, he wasn't getting an appeal in a timely matter, at the rate the process is taking, I may pass away from old age before a decision is made and I am 29.  

he should serve his sentence like anyone else found guilty of a crime

As Chadders points out a majority of inmates who have requested compassionate release have been granted it.  This release follows the letter of the law in that regard.

The soundness of the conviction is an entirely separate matter to whether he should have been released on compassionate grounds.

I agree



Chadders,  He actually did apply to transfer to Libyan but because he refused to drop the appeal it was denied.  Interesting!

I don't think Obama has done enough.  The U.S. had every right to intercept that plane, force it to land in a friendly NATO country, take Megrahi into US custody to serve out the rest of his sentence.  Why didn't our President do this?  We got a boy who never rode a bike flying a jumbo jet!

  The U.S. had every right to intercept that plane, force it to land in a friendly NATO country, take Megrahi into US custody to serve out the rest of his sentence. 

Actually no the US doesn't have that right, legally speaking. 

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

Legally, no, but politcally maybe. However, this is supposed to be a legal decision not a political one. That is why, IF these other matters were taken into account in making the decision to release him, it is worse than wrong. Unfortuntately, this decision is not subject to judicial review so the truth is not likely to ever be made public.

Actually no the US doesn't have that right, legally speaking. 

So "legally speaking", a spineless politician can release a mass murderer.  If the Scots aren't willing to stand for justice, than surely we must take it into our own hands for the sake of the victims and their families.

I don't think Obama has done enough.  The U.S. had every right to intercept that plane, force it to land in a friendly NATO country, take Megrahi into US custody to serve out the rest of his sentence. 

 

So "legally speaking", a spineless politician can release a mass murderer.  If the Scots aren't willing to stand for justice, than surely we must take it into our own hands for the sake of the victims and their families.

How can you quote standing for justice and then say you should break international law? Ridiculous.

I don't think Obama has done enough.  The U.S. had every right to intercept that plane, force it to land in a friendly NATO country, take Megrahi into US custody to serve out the rest of his sentence. 

As long as we're going to use force to bend the rest of the world to our will, why not just have the CIA snatch him on the street someplace, toss him into a secret prison in Uzbekistan, and torture him to death?  It'd be cheaper and easier than bullying one of our allies into letting us intercept/force down an airplane in their country and then dealing with all the messy legal bollocks that would no doubt ensue from doing it in the open where everyone could see.

For a guy who preaches non-intervention as much as you do, you're awfully quick to deploy fighter jets over friendly countries when you feel like it.  Did you not learn anything from the Iraqi adventures of the neocons in your party?

As long as we're going to use force to bend the rest of the world to our will, why not just have the CIA snatch him on the street someplace, toss him into a secret prison in Uzbekistan, and torture him to death? 

Don't be silly.....the CIA would never do something like that.....oh.....ah.....wait a minute!

The director of the FBI has written a letter to MacAskill, saying, "...I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of 'compassion.'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32520650/ns/world_news-terrorism/

I think the director is absolutely correct.

Another thing ... if this was a decision of the Scottish executive (not not Whitehall) maybe this would be a good time to give the SNP the independence they so badly want.

How can you quote standing for justice and then say you should break international law? Ridiculous.

I don't recognize "international law".

For a guy who preaches non-intervention as much as you do, you're awfully quick to deploy fighter jets over friendly countries when you feel like it.  Did you not learn anything from the Iraqi adventures of the neocons in your party?

You would have a point if the subject in question didn't murder 189 Americans.

Anyway, perhaps there's a more sensible approach to this.  I wonder what would happen to Scotland's already fragile economy if American tourists stopped visiting and Americans opting for Irish whiskey instead.  Perhaps the Scottish government will take a hint if we send 10s of thousands of Scots to the unemployment line.  If the American money stopped, will the Scottish government still be feeling so compassionate toward terrorists?

I don't recognize "international law".

Who are you, Idi Amin? Pol Pot? 

Who are you, Idi Amin? Pol Pot?  

Grand.  So now our Founding Fathers (and those that share their vision for America) are on the same level as Idi Amin and Pol Pot.  I see it didn't take "Progressive America" long to destroy the country!

For a guy who preaches non-intervention as much as you do, you're awfully quick to deploy fighter jets over friendly countries when you feel like it.  Did you not learn anything from the Iraqi adventures of the neocons in your party?

You would have a point if the subject in question didn't murder 189 Americans.

So, essentially, your foreign policy/use of military force doctrine is "Do not interfere in other countries' affairs, unless I personally feel like we should, in which case deploy forces wherever is necessary to achieve my objective." 

That's good.  Very George W. Bush.