Lockerbie Bomber Freed From Prison on Compassionate Grounds

[publicprotector]

It is strange indeed to hear from empty headed Americans who scream from the rooftops about the actions of an alleged terrorist when it is their own nation that has attacked and invaded nations that posed no threat to it and have not raised any hand against them. Their own, feted as "hero's for the slaughter of innocent men women and children dare speak of injuctice and right.

Not content with mass murder in the millions, the raping and pillaging of nations, these lame brain sloth like creatues rise up from the swamp to spew their ignorance and hate.
Under the delusion that their nation controls others and that they and their corrupt and incompent Government can tell others what to do.

Well for the swamp dwellers out there its simple, you keep on killing and your going to get it back. Its an old rule you might of heard of it before, but there is nothing brave in an alleged great nation attacking poor 3rd World nations that pose not threat and never could no, many words come to mind but one thats resounds for them all is this one COWARDS, for only cowards and bullies pick on those who cannot fight back.

One must ask this, what would the population of America do if they were ever attacked or invaded, would they yeild , cow tow to the invader, or would they fight back, that is the question you must ask yourself. What would you do if you saw your family members murder by an invading occupying force. When you have faced that perhaps you will learn to understand. But one thing is for sure its that Americans don't understand full stop.

 

[WillowTree]

It is strange indeed to hear from empty headed Americans who scream from the rooftops about the actions of an alleged terrorist when it is their own nation that has attacked and invaded nations that posed no threat to it and have not raised any hand against them. Their own, feted as "hero's for the slaughter of innocent men women and children dare speak of injuctice and right.

Not content with mass murder in the millions, the raping and pillaging of nations, these lame brain sloth like creatues rise up from the swamp to spew their ignorance and hate.
Under the delusion that their nation controls others and that they and their corrupt and incompent Government can tell others what to do.

Well for the swamp dwellers out there its simple, you keep on killing and your going to get it back. Its an old rule you might of heard of it before, but there is nothing brave in an alleged great nation attacking poor 3rd World nations that pose not threat and never could no, many words come to mind but one thats resounds for them all is this one COWARDS, for only cowards and bullies pick on those who cannot fight back.

One must ask this, what would the population of America do if they were ever attacked or invaded, would they yeild , cow tow to the invader, or would they fight back, that is the question you must ask yourself. What would you do if you saw your family members murder by an invading occupying force. When you have faced that perhaps you will learn to understand. But one thing is for sure its that Americans don't understand full stop.

asshhole, you posted this right after Americans were chastized for lobbing stuff at the UK. so that makes you a double barreled asshole.

 

[Bootneck]

Boot why don't you tell us what is going on? I'll be the first to admit that I don't know why this has happened. What is the truth as you see it?

The scumbag was released by a Scottish Justice system filled with bleeding heart liberalists, governed by a leftist nationalist bunch of political nerds who look more to the EU than the UK. They were wrong and they have been roundly condemned by the leader of the Conservative party and the people of both Scotland and England.

If the know-alls on here want to throw shit at the UK in general as a result of this, then they can expect a response from me, since their spurios rhetoric illustrates their ignorance and bigotry. It's because of bigots like these that the young men of your country and mine find themselves fighting wars.

bigots are the reason we fight wars?

Bigots start wars.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know of none either, I'm quoting the citizen man

You mean me?

If so then I must remind myself not to be so nuanced in future,

By the way you do know how many people were killed in the plane and on the ground don't you?

Or perhaps you don't give a fuck.

Try to follow along before you get all high and mighty and pissy.. I posted a link to the comments section of the paper,, then I posted several quotes.. and yes I have an idea of how many died, 189 americans 81 scotsmen and I personally don't give a shit about the nationality of those who died, it could have been little green men from mars for all I care. the fact is it seems that the UK struck a deal with the devil for oil,, and the citizenry of these three countries of the UK seem to be anti American or anit little green men from mars. that is all

Didn't the UK AND the US already 'strike a deal with the devil for oil' a few years ago when WE and they lifted the sanctions on Libya?

 

[publicprotector]

My comments have nothing to do with any of that, it is a view that I have held for along time indeed. It just merely highlights what flakes some Americans are, as an example; its OK for America to attack and kill who it likes but its not alright for others to do the same to it.

Well I'm sorry it does not work like that, perhaps you can point to the Iraqi and Afgani forces that invaded and attacked the US, I'll be waiting for the answer.

I do not need any reasons to state anything about the US as you provide the ammuntion for which to fire back at you. And if all you have is profanity then you truly are a swamp dweller as stated.

 

[WillowTree]

My comments have nothing to do with any of that, it is a view that I have held for along time indeed. It just merely highlights what flakes some Americans are, as an example; its OK for America to attack and kill who it likes but its not alright for others to do the same to it.

Well I'm sorry it does not work like that, perhaps you can point to the Iraqi and Afgani forces that invaded and attacked the US, I'll be waiting for the answer.

I do not need any reasons to state anything about the US as you provide the ammuntion for which to fire back at you. And if all you have is profanity then you truly are a swamp dweller as stated.

spout 5000 words and you are still an asshole. can't help ya with that.

 

[Diuretic]

I know of none either, I'm quoting the citizen man

You mean me?

If so then I must remind myself not to be so nuanced in future,

By the way you do know how many people were killed in the plane and on the ground don't you?

Or perhaps you don't give a fuck.

Try to follow along before you get all high and mighty and pissy.. I posted a link to the comments section of the paper,, then I posted several quotes.. and yes I have an idea of how many died, 189 americans 81 scotsmen and I personally don't give a shit about the nationality of those who died, it could have been little green men from mars for all I care. the fact is it seems that the UK struck a deal with the devil for oil,, and the citizenry of these three countries of the UK seem to be anti American or anit little green men from mars. that is all

Good, you give a fuck. Now, about the attendant circumstances. As I understand it the Scottish Government is involved, not the UK government. The stated rationale was compassionate grounds. It will be interesting to see if these allegations about oil are accurate.

 

[Diuretic]

There's a lot of doubt that this bloke actually committed the crime.

Now before I get rounded on. The crime was abhorrent. I spoke to a Scottish copper who moved here not long after the event. He told me about going to the scene and what his colleagues, who had got there sooner, had witnessed. I won't go into detail.

So, the crime was unspeakably abhorrent.

Put that aside. There is a considerably body of doubt about the reliability of the conviction and that has been building for some time. The scapegoat argument has some power to it, given that Libya isn't exactly a bastion of liberal democracy.

Anyway, there's another question. Assume there is no doubt at all about the conviction. Assume that the bomber - who has always denied guilt - admits he did it. Now he's got terminal cancer. Should he be released to die with his relatives or should be remain in prison to die?

I understand there is quite a bit of doubt as to his actual guilt. I don't know the specifics, so I will not judge this action. However, as to your question, if he truly was guilty, then he should have died in prison. With the real possibility of his innocence, I'm not going to condemn the UK for this action.

And that helps me to work it out too. If there was no doubt as to his guilt then he should have served his entire sentence. Compassionate grounds might be okay for Ronnie Biggs, after all he never killed anyone, but no, I wouldn't agree on compassionate grounds for a mass murderer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The release was not on compassionate grounds at all.

Money . . . it's always about money, it seems. The Scots will save several hundreds of thousands of dollars letting a man dying of prostate cancer to die in Libya. That's all it is, and it is morally indefensible.

 

[Diuretic]

Oil. Saving money. Next?

 

[WillowTree]

There's a lot of doubt that this bloke actually committed the crime.

Now before I get rounded on. The crime was abhorrent. I spoke to a Scottish copper who moved here not long after the event. He told me about going to the scene and what his colleagues, who had got there sooner, had witnessed. I won't go into detail.

So, the crime was unspeakably abhorrent.

Put that aside. There is a considerably body of doubt about the reliability of the conviction and that has been building for some time. The scapegoat argument has some power to it, given that Libya isn't exactly a bastion of liberal democracy.

Anyway, there's another question. Assume there is no doubt at all about the conviction. Assume that the bomber - who has always denied guilt - admits he did it. Now he's got terminal cancer. Should he be released to die with his relatives or should be remain in prison to die?

I understand there is quite a bit of doubt as to his actual guilt. I don't know the specifics, so I will not judge this action. However, as to your question, if he truly was guilty, then he should have died in prison. With the real possibility of his innocence, I'm not going to condemn the UK for this action.

And that helps me to work it out too. If there was no doubt as to his guilt then he should have served his entire sentence. Compassionate grounds might be okay for Ronnie Biggs, after all he never killed anyone, but no, I wouldn't agree on compassionate grounds for a mass murderer.

If there was doubt about his guilt a new trial would be in order. But as I understand it he dropped his appeal.. and bull, on the compassion. The victims get screwed twice. so much for compassion hey?

 

[Diuretic]

I understand there is quite a bit of doubt as to his actual guilt. I don't know the specifics, so I will not judge this action. However, as to your question, if he truly was guilty, then he should have died in prison. With the real possibility of his innocence, I'm not going to condemn the UK for this action.

And that helps me to work it out too. If there was no doubt as to his guilt then he should have served his entire sentence. Compassionate grounds might be okay for Ronnie Biggs, after all he never killed anyone, but no, I wouldn't agree on compassionate grounds for a mass murderer.

If there was doubt about his guilt a new trial would be in order. But as I understand it he dropped his appeal.. and bull, on the compassion. The victims get screwed twice. so much for compassion hey?

He probably dropped his appeal when he was aware of the pending release. If he hadn't then I suppose he would have had to stay in prison and since he's dying that would be somewhat pointless. I don't know about that though, just a supposition on my part.

As for the compassion. The Scottish Government has stated the decision was made on compassionate grounds. You've suggested oil, Jake has suggested money. Someone's right and if there's oil or money involved in it then it will be seen to be so. The Scottish electorate can then make a decision about its government.

 

[WillowTree]

And that helps me to work it out too. If there was no doubt as to his guilt then he should have served his entire sentence. Compassionate grounds might be okay for Ronnie Biggs, after all he never killed anyone, but no, I wouldn't agree on compassionate grounds for a mass murderer.

If there was doubt about his guilt a new trial would be in order. But as I understand it he dropped his appeal.. and bull, on the compassion. The victims get screwed twice. so much for compassion hey?

He probably dropped his appeal when he was aware of the pending release. If he hadn't then I suppose he would have had to stay in prison and since he's dying that would be somewhat pointless. I don't know about that though, just a supposition on my part.

As for the compassion. The Scottish Government has stated the decision was made on compassionate grounds. You've suggested oil, Jake has suggested money. Someone's right and if there's oil or money involved in it then it will be seen to be so. The Scottish electorate can then make a decision about its government.

no! listen carefully, what I said was there were some interesting comments posted from around the world. It's some brits and Scots saying Brown sold out for oil. Me? I'm trying to learn.

 

[Agnapostate]

There seems to be a disgustingly pervasive mentality in this country that involves blind and irrational trust in any court system. O.J. Simpson's acquittal, of course, does not deter many from claiming that he's guilty nonetheless, but for some reason, legal conviction is treated entirely differently. There is certainly substantial impropriety involved if key prosecution witness Gauci was indeed paid a $2 million sum to testify against Megrahi, and I found this statement of a UN observer to be of significant interest:

Dr. Hans Koechler said that the dramatic shortcomings and errors in the conduct of the trial that have been brought to the attention of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) confirm his earlier assessment that the Lockerbie trial resulted in a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” (BBC News, 14 March 2002) Dr. Koechler pointed to the following information that transpired in the media and that puts in doubt the very integrity of the judicial process in the Lockerbie case:

1. The credibility of a key forensic expert in the trial, Mr. Allen Feraday (UK), has been shattered. It was revealed that “in three separate cases men against whom Mr. Feraday gave evidence have now had their convictions overturned” (BBC, 19 August 2005). Mr. Feraday had told the Lockerbie court that a circuit board fragment found after the disaster was part of the detonator used in the bomb on board Pan Am flight 103. In the first case where Mr. Feraday’s credibility had been questioned the Lord Chief Justice had stated that Mr. Feraday should not be allowed to present himself an expert in electronics.

2. A retired Scottish police officer has signed a statement confirming that the evidence that found Al-Megrahi guilty was fabricated. The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, testified “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005). The fragment was supposedly part of the timing device that triggered the bomb. The circumstances of its discovery – in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity – have been mysterious from the very beginning.

3. Much earlier, a forensic specialist of the American FBI, Tom Thurman, who was publicly credited with figuring out the fragment’s evidentiary importance, was later discredited as a forensic expert. A 1997 report by the US Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found “that in a number of cases other than Lockerbie, Thurman rewrote lab reports, making them more favorable to the prosecution. The report also recommended Thurman be reassigned to a non-scientific job because he lacked a background in science.” (American RadioWorks / Public Radio, March 2000)

4. The most recent revelation relates to a mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation. In one case, a garment which was damaged in a test explosion was presented as if it was the original garment found on the ground (which was completely undamaged). This garment was supposedly placed in the suitcase containing the bomb. “It casts serious doubts over the prosecution case because certain items that should have been destroyed if they were in the case containing the bomb are now known to have survived the blast.” (The Observer, London, 9 October 2005)

All these facts – which are now before the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission – confirm the serious doubts about the Lockerbie proceedings originally raised by the UN-appointed observer, Dr. Hans Koechler. In his comprehensive reports on and evaluation of the Lockerbie trial (2001) and appeal (2002) as well as in his statement on the compensation deal made between the US, UK and Libya in 2003, Dr. Koechler had criticized the highly politicized circumstances in which the case was handled and drew the attention of the international public to the possible interference of intelligence services from more than one country.

To summarize, regardless of whether or not he is guilty (and there seems to be insufficient evidence to convict him), it's not unreasonable to note that much of the key evidence submitted in the trial may have been fabricated, and it's therefore absurd to suggest that repetition of this unjust process would somehow aid Megrahi. As with the cases of Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal here in the U.S., there may have been substantial motivation to convict him due to pressure from political or ideological interests.

 

[WillowTree]

And we all know how trustworthy and honorable the UN is.. course we do!

 

[Bootneck]

The release was not on compassionate grounds at all.

Money . . . it's always about money, it seems. The Scots will save several hundreds of thousands of dollars letting a man dying of prostate cancer to die in Libya. That's all it is, and it is morally indefensible.

Provide a link otherwise your statement is your own stupid opinion. Come back when you can back your shit with facts.

 

[Bootneck]

I understand there is quite a bit of doubt as to his actual guilt. I don't know the specifics, so I will not judge this action. However, as to your question, if he truly was guilty, then he should have died in prison. With the real possibility of his innocence, I'm not going to condemn the UK for this action.

And that helps me to work it out too. If there was no doubt as to his guilt then he should have served his entire sentence. Compassionate grounds might be okay for Ronnie Biggs, after all he never killed anyone, but no, I wouldn't agree on compassionate grounds for a mass murderer.

If there was doubt about his guilt a new trial would be in order. But as I understand it he dropped his appeal.. and bull, on the compassion. The victims get screwed twice. so much for compassion hey?

His lawyers dropped the appeal because they felt he would stand more chance of being freed on compassionate grounds, but feel free to invent any conspiracy theory you may have. It'll go well with the rest of the crap being dumped in this thread.

 

[Agnapostate]

And we all know how trustworthy and honorable the UN is.. course we do!

Class, please direct your attention to our first logical fallacy issued in response to the evidence posted, known as the argumentum ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

As described therein, this is an informal logical fallacy that usually takes the following basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

Now...let's see if donkeyface will try toddling over here again, and if she's learned from her little blunder just now.

 

[WillowTree]

And that helps me to work it out too. If there was no doubt as to his guilt then he should have served his entire sentence. Compassionate grounds might be okay for Ronnie Biggs, after all he never killed anyone, but no, I wouldn't agree on compassionate grounds for a mass murderer.

If there was doubt about his guilt a new trial would be in order. But as I understand it he dropped his appeal.. and bull, on the compassion. The victims get screwed twice. so much for compassion hey?

His lawyers dropped the appeal because they felt he would stand more chance of being freed on compassionate grounds, but feel free to invent any conspiracy theory you may have. It'll go well with the rest of the crap being dumped in this thread.

now you are just getting testy for testies sake. relax.. I'm used to America bashing. it's become old hat.

 

[Diuretic]

If there was doubt about his guilt a new trial would be in order. But as I understand it he dropped his appeal.. and bull, on the compassion. The victims get screwed twice. so much for compassion hey?

He probably dropped his appeal when he was aware of the pending release. If he hadn't then I suppose he would have had to stay in prison and since he's dying that would be somewhat pointless. I don't know about that though, just a supposition on my part.

As for the compassion. The Scottish Government has stated the decision was made on compassionate grounds. You've suggested oil, Jake has suggested money. Someone's right and if there's oil or money involved in it then it will be seen to be so. The Scottish electorate can then make a decision about its government.

no! listen carefully, what I said was there were some interesting comments posted from around the world. It's some brits and Scots saying Brown sold out for oil. Me? I'm trying to learn.

Some English folks and Scottish folks are cranky with the Scottish Government for letting this bloke out on compassionate grounds. For those who seem only too willing to stereotype the British and Scottish governments and possibly the English and Scottish people as well that's an object lesson.

It seems to me that the Scottish Government is on the rack on this one.

If it was a combination of nagging doubt about the veracity of the conviction combined with the knowledge that the man is dying that led to the decision to release him then it will stand alone.

If there is a sudden - or even gradual - benefit to Scotland from this decision, I don't know how it could be manifested but no doubt other minds better than mine will see it, if it happens - then the Scottish government will be condemned for its actions in which it claimed compassion but was motivated by economic self-interest. The judgement of the Scottish electorate - historically a Labour-leaning electorate I think - will decide whether this current government continues to exist at the next Scottish general election.