View Full Version : Lockerbie bomber freed
Midget Pirates
08/21/09, 10:37 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6062496/Barack-Obama-leads-condemnation-of-Scotland-for-freeing-Lockerbie-bomber.html
Scotland should be ashamed. I think this is something we should all agree on.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 10:39 AM
Did you read that he has three months to live?
fightinirish217
08/21/09, 10:40 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6062496/Barack-Obama-leads-condemnation-of-Scotland-for-freeing-Lockerbie-bomber.html
Scotland should be ashamed. I think this is something we should all agree on.
It should be, but it won't be.
Midget Pirates
08/21/09, 10:41 AM
Did you read that he has three months to live?
did you read about the 200 plus people killed who didn't get to die at home with their loved ones?
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 10:42 AM
Did you read that he has three months to live? I'm not following the train of thought of how inhumanity cures or resolves inhumanity.
Midget Pirates
08/21/09, 10:45 AM
Did you read that he has three months to live? I'm not following the train of thought of how inhumanity cures or resolves inhumanity.
i don't give a fuck that he has 3 months to live. If he wanted to die with his family and friends, he shouldn't have been responsible for the deaths of 200 plus people. His 3 months left should be spent in jail.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 10:46 AM
And my point has been proven. Thank you.
Midget Pirates
08/21/09, 10:48 AM
And my point has been proven. Thank you.
the only thing you proved is that you could care less about the victims and their families. you don't give a fuck about humanity.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 10:51 AM
That's definitely not what I proved but the same can be said of your opinion concerning his families.
Midget Pirates
08/21/09, 10:54 AM
That's definitely not what I proved but the same can be said of your opinion concerning his families.
his families can visit him at jail like they should. His family did not have to suffer the misfortune of having their son being taken away from them suddenly by an act of terror. don't try to compare what his family is going through to what the families of the victims had to go through scumbag.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
08/21/09, 11:24 AM
ive always thought saysmydoctor was an idiot, but this really drives it home.
Fedaykin
08/21/09, 11:25 AM
I'm not following the train of thought of how inhumanity cures or resolves inhumanity.
Their answer will be an eye for an eye
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 11:25 AM
ive always thought saysmydoctor was an idiot, but this really drives it home.
That's funny, because I was under the impression after how wrong you proven to be consistently in the Gates thread, I was under the impression you weren't intelligent.
perceptrons
08/21/09, 11:28 AM
ive always thought saysmydoctor was an idiot, but this really drives it home.
Because you disagree, he is an idiot? I wouldn't call it idiotic to hold the opinion that 'inhumanity doesn't cure or resolve inhumanity'.
Revenge really makes so many people feel better, doesn't it?
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
08/21/09, 11:29 AM
telling me im wrong doesn't 'prove' me wrong, no matter how high your post count is.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 11:31 AM
No, you were proven wrong, a lot.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
08/21/09, 11:32 AM
hey! in other news, charles manson doesn't have long to live, we should release him to show the world how nice we are!
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 11:35 AM
Rehabilitation has been far more effective in the world.
Fedaykin
08/21/09, 11:36 AM
we didnt make the decision to release lockerbie
manson doesn't have a terminal illness
Fedaykin
08/21/09, 11:36 AM
Rehabilitation has been far more effective in the world.
the prison system as it exists does little to nothing in the way of rehabilitation
perceptrons
08/21/09, 11:38 AM
Just wondering, if a man is about to die, what good does it do the world to keep him locked up? Do you think a dying man is going to go on a killing spree?
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 11:38 AM
I'm looking at systems in Norway and Scandinavia.
ive always thought saysmydoctor was an idiot, but this really drives it home.
Funny, here I am thinking this really shows how intelligent and level-headed saysmydoctor really is.
Do you REALLY think, in the realm of punishment, that 3 extra months (if he's lucky) in a scottish prison (which are pretty swanky from what I've read) is going to take his punishment meter from the already dismal low it was at to "FULLY PUNISHED"? I mean, I've got no sympathy for the guy, but jesus...what's the huge deal, he's dead anyway?
As has been said, the bloodlust for revenge says SO much about society right now. It's mindblowing.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
08/21/09, 11:58 AM
maybe saysmydoctor could answer something for me. hopefully. i'd really like to understand you.
why do you argue so hard for the rights and respect of evil people who havent deserved rights and respect...yet you time and again insult and degrade perfectly normal, innocent people on this messageboard? you have more respect for mass murderers and psychopaths than your peers here in this forum.
this man does not deserve to be free because he is GUILTY OF KILLING 270 PEOPLE. let that sink in. now what kind of twisted mind thinks that because he's about to die, we should 'play nice'? and geebee calls this level-headed and intelligent? its completely out of touch with reality.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 12:09 PM
maybe saysmydoctor could answer something for me. hopefully. i'd really like to understand you.
why do you argue so hard for the rights and respect of evil people who havent deserved rights and respect...yet you time and again insult and degrade perfectly normal, innocent people on this messageboard? you have more respect for mass murderers and psychopaths than your peers here in this forum.
this man does not deserve to be free because he is GUILTY OF KILLING 270 PEOPLE. let that sink in. now what kind of twisted mind thinks that because he's about to die, we should 'play nice'? and geebee calls this level-headed and intelligent? its completely out of touch with reality.
There you go with another -ism, just further treating people with inequality.
Midget Pirates
08/21/09, 12:11 PM
maybe saysmydoctor could answer something for me. hopefully. i'd really like to understand you.
why do you argue so hard for the rights and respect of evil people who havent deserved rights and respect...yet you time and again insult and degrade perfectly normal, innocent people on this messageboard? you have more respect for mass murderers and psychopaths than your peers here in this forum.
this man does not deserve to be free because he is GUILTY OF KILLING 270 PEOPLE. let that sink in. now what kind of twisted mind thinks that because he's about to die, we should 'play nice'? and geebee calls this level-headed and intelligent? its completely out of touch with reality.
it really boggles the mind that people think that way doesn't it. 270 people. and we should show how enlightened and "compassionate" we are and do him favors.
Midget Pirates
08/21/09, 12:13 PM
There you go with another -ism, just further treating people with inequality.
we shouldn't treat mass murderers as EQUALS!! unbelievable. you gotta be a fucking troll. I believe in all men being created equal, but when you start blowing up planes, you kind of lose your rights to being treated like everyone else.
it really boggles the mind that people think that way doesn't it. 270 people. and we should show how enlightened and "compassionate" we are and do him favors.
This is a straw-man argument. No one's ever said this. All anyone's ever said is that it's stupid to be so filled with desire for revenge that you'd lose sleep over a cancer-ridden old cook, who barely received any punishment anyway, to spend another measly 90 days (if lucky) in a posh prison in Scotland. Jesus.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 12:14 PM
A suppressed people, in a lot of ways, have the right to attack a guilty power structure directly responsible power structure.
I'm not saying needless murderers do, but they deserve just as much as our help as possible.
A suppressed people, in a lot of ways, have the right to attack a guilty power structure directly responsible power structure.
I'm not saying needless murderers do, but they deserve just as much as our help as possible.
The bolded does not include innocent bystanders on a plane, however, so we diverge here.
thatwasamoment
08/21/09, 12:31 PM
Scotland is not too sure of his guilt, keep that in mind...
Scotland is not too sure of his guilt, keep that in mind...
Not to mention, a CIA connection cannot be ruled out either. Something else to keep in mind...
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 12:33 PM
The bolded does not include innocent bystanders on a plane, however, so we diverge here.
I even would say that such attacks are understandable and loosely warranted, but ultimately infantile compared on the power structure.
I think is Dom who originally brought this idea to my attention, I had never considered it before.
Animalhill
08/21/09, 12:34 PM
Did you read that he has three months to live? I'm not following the train of thought of how inhumanity cures or resolves inhumanity.
THANK YOU. All these dumb fucks with pitchforks and straw hats screaming, "Kill him! He has killed!" The point they are trying to proove seems counterintuitive to me. He's going to die in three months anyways. Let him die.
THANK YOU. All these dumb fucks with pitchforks and straw hats screaming, "Kill him! He has killed!" The point they are trying to proove seems counterintuitive to me. He's going to die in three months anyways. Let him die.
Such a jewish thing to say. And I agree wholeheartedly. That's right NAYSAYERS!!! I AGREE WITH JEWS!!!
Animalhill
08/21/09, 12:48 PM
Such a jewish thing to say. And I agree wholeheartedly. That's right NAYSAYERS!!! I AGREE WITH JEWS!!!
:lol:
thebestkylever
08/21/09, 12:52 PM
feed him to nessy.
But seriously...at this point, squeezing 90 more days out of this sorry prick will not bring anybody much more closure, will it?
Animalhill
08/21/09, 12:53 PM
feed him to nessy.
Nessy only eats white people.
feed him to nessy.
(nessy essplodes)
thebestkylever
08/21/09, 12:59 PM
Nessy only eats white people.
don't blame him/her. white meat is juicier.
Animalhill
08/21/09, 01:01 PM
don't blame him/her. white meat is juicier.
:-d Picky ass monster.
thebestkylever
08/21/09, 01:02 PM
:-d Picky ass monster.
not like it has competition... i'd be picky too.
mattmatumbo
08/21/09, 01:21 PM
I hope Scotland actually let him go as a big "FUCK YOU" to England haha!
Machu505
08/21/09, 01:23 PM
In the event that he miraculously gets better, does he go back to jail?
Yeah, we should be ashamed. Releasing this man means we are letting him off lightly. He should serve those 90 days, that would show him! That would deter the terrorists, ''we don't care if you are dying soon, us Scots will keep you locked up until you die because we are hard bastards. FREEDOM!!''. Not like British citizens died in the atrocity or anything, we are showing him weak compassion by not keeping him locked up in the BRUTAL GREENOCK PRISON! Freeing him hasn't saved millions on a dying man's second appeal or anything.
People need to stop being so bloodthirsty. Lockerbie was a horrible, tragic event but his life is over anyway. It is done.
I have just realised everything I have said has already been said but without the awful attempts at a rant. Oh well.
Yeah, we should be ashamed. Releasing this man means we are letting him off lightly. He should serve those 90 days, that would show him! That would deter the terrorists, ''we don't care if you are dying soon, us Scots will keep you locked up until you die because we are hard bastards. FREEDOM!!''. Not like British citizens died in the atrocity or anything, we are showing him weak compassion by not keeping him locked up in the BRUTAL GREENOCK PRISON! Freeing him hasn't saved millions on a dying man's second appeal or anything.
People need to stop being so bloodthirsty. Lockerbie was a horrible, tragic event but his life is over anyway. It is done.
I have just realised everything I have said has already been said but without the awful attempts at a rant. Oh well.
THANK YOU!
And yes, you did reiterate previously made points, but as a rule I always read UK posters' posts with Eddie Izzard's voice in my head, and that makes it both enlightening and pleasant!
THANK YOU!
And yes, you did reiterate previously made points, but as a rule I always read UK posters' posts with Eddie Izzard's voice in my head, and that makes it both enlightening and pleasant!
Oh how I love Eddie Izzard.
Oh how I love Eddie Izzard.
He's a true "executive"...
He shouldn't have been released.
I heard that if the scottish authorities heald him till he died it would bring all of the victims back to life and they didn't do it because they didn't want to do the paper work involved. Not to mention that the UK's socialist health care system couldn't possible handle the strain caused by over 200 people who used to be dead suddenly needing health care.
I heard that if the scottish authorities heald him till he died it would bring all of the victims back to life and they didn't do it because they didn't want to do the paper work involved. Not to mention that the UK's socialist health care system couldn't possible handle the strain caused by over 200 people who used to be dead suddenly needing health care.
:lol:
Most reasonable post of this entire thread.
He shouldn't have been released.
A stance most have based purely on emotional, vengeful grounds.
This whole situation is made more controversial as the reception Megrahi received is unfortunate and that is what a lot of people on the International stage are seeing and it is stoking the fires whereas on a domestic level it is worse as people think the SNP have taken this decision to seperate themselves from Labour and England, simply making a ''strong move'' to try and show Scotland as a seperate nation. The awful thing is the second point may actually be true.
A stance most have based purely on emotional, vengeful grounds.
It's no more an emotional argument than the one you're making.
I don't disagree with the notion of compassionate early release, I just don't support it in an instance where you're dealing with a life sentence on murder charges.
It's no more an emotional argument than the one you're making.
I don't disagree with the notion of compassionate early release, I just don't support it in an instance such as this where you're dealing with a life sentence on murder charges.
Fair enough. But one could argue he already has WORSE than a life-sentence. He's got a death sentence.
TeachBirds2Fly
08/21/09, 03:40 PM
Let him die back home, if you knew anything about the trial you would see what a scape-goat he was. It is also clear that the US government are happy that his appeal has ended (he could only be released if there was nothing ongoing with his case, he wanted to continue to clear his name but dropping the appeal was the only way he could go home) If the appeal was not dropped I (and a lot of others) are sure he would have been cleared. I think the SNP should be proud of standing up to the US and UK governments for once and making a decession that shows basic human decency (and don't bother going back by saying something retarded like "what compassion did he show to his victims" it is not worth the pixals).
It's no more an emotional argument than the one you're making.
I don't disagree with the notion of compassionate early release, I just don't support it in an instance where you're dealing with a life sentence on murder charges.
There are shreds of things that are more than simply an emotional argument on this side. Compassion to a soon to be dead man is the main point but there are clear benefits that can come from his dropping of the appeal and of at least one western nation showing some compassion. This is all done under the fact that he is 3 months from death of course.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
08/21/09, 04:10 PM
A stance most have based purely on emotional, vengeful grounds.
i have yet to see a reasonable basis for your stance on this. why SHOULD he be released? what is the point of a life sentence, if you feel like letting him die in prison 'isn't very nice'?
and as j.c. said, wanting to show compassion to a dying man is just as much an emotional response as the call for revenge.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 04:17 PM
What harm will come of a dying man being released? Honestly.
i have yet to see a reasonable basis for your stance on this. why SHOULD he be released? what is the point of a life sentence, if you feel like letting him die in prison 'isn't very nice'?
and as j.c. said, wanting to show compassion to a dying man is just as much an emotional response as the call for revenge.
You misunderstand me. I don't agree with his release, nor do I necessarily think it was all that "compassionate", since a Scottish prison isn't exactly the seventh circle of hell.
All I was saying is that, given the circumstances, it doesn't make that big of a difference. The dude is dead. The dude was a patsy thrown under the bus by powers larger than himself. The dude has 90 days if he's lucky. All this weeping and wailing is a tad overblown, given the circumstances.
That's all I was saying.
i have yet to see a reasonable basis for your stance on this. why SHOULD he be released? what is the point of a life sentence, if you feel like letting him die in prison 'isn't very nice'?
and as j.c. said, wanting to show compassion to a dying man is just as much an emotional response as the call for revenge.
OK, I will break down my position for you:
1. The man has three months to live. He no longer poses any sort of threat to anyone. He is still in the middle of a ludicrously lengthy legal trial, on its second appeal. He will either die in a comfy prison here or he dies at home with his family.
As a result of 1, these things can happen:
2. A lot of the Libyan people still believe Al Megrahi to be innocent and indeed the appeal was still rumbling. Sending him back home can only strengthing ties with Libya, which can only be a positive. I am not necessarily delighted with companies rolling in and making profits off the back of this but Libya has something to offer and we can improve life for normal Libyans through this.
3. A smaller point but the legal trial and Al Megrahi health bill will have cost the British and more specifically Scottish taxpayer millions. He agreed to drop these to return home.
4. General relations cannot be harmed. A Western country showing a shred of compassion may well make a change to some people. That is to be aimed for.
There is just nothing to gain from seeing him die in hospital in 90 days than at home. Nothing.
OK, I will break down my position for you:
1. The man has three months to live. He no longer poses any sort of threat to anyone. He is still in the middle of a ludicrously lengthy legal trial, on its second appeal. He will either die in a comfy prison here or he dies at home with his family.
As a result of 1, these things can happen:
2. A lot of the Libyan people still believe Al Megrahi to be innocent and indeed the appeal was still rumbling. Sending him back home can only strengthing ties with Libya, which can only be a positive. I am not necessarily delighted with companies rolling in and making profits off the back of this but Libya has something to offer and we can improve life for normal Libyans through this.
3. A smaller point but the legal trial and Al Megrahi health bill will have cost the British and more specifically Scottish taxpayer millions. He agreed to drop these to return home.
4. General relations cannot be harmed. A Western country showing a shred of compassion may well make a change to some people. That is to be aimed for.
There is just nothing to gain from seeing him die in hospital in 90 days than at home. Nothing.
Great articulation.
To add to it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090821/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_lockerbie
"...by Libyan standards, al-Megrahi's welcome was relatively muted. Hundreds of people waiting in the crowd for his plane were rushed away by authorities at the last minute, and the arrival was not aired live on state TV.
It was an unusually low-key approach for a country that used to snap up any opportunity to snub the West and could easily bring out hundreds of thousands to cheer if it chose to. It suggested that Libya is wary of hurting its ties with the U.S. and Europe and had listened to Obama's warning not to give al-Megrahi a hero's welcome.
"It seemed as some form of last-minute compromise between those who felt it their patriotic duty to welcome him and those in the Libyan hierarchy who wanted to heed the demands of the U.S. that it should be low-key," said Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya.
"There was no Libyan dignitary to receive him, and no formal reception. This is compulsory in Arab hospitality, so the absence of a welcoming party is quite significant," he added."
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
08/21/09, 04:42 PM
OK, I will break down my position for you:
1. The man has three months to live. He no longer poses any sort of threat to anyone. He is still in the middle of a ludicrously lengthy legal trial, on its second appeal. He will either die in a comfy prison here or he dies at home with his family.
As a result of 1, these things can happen:
2. A lot of the Libyan people still believe Al Megrahi to be innocent and indeed the appeal was still rumbling. Sending him back home can only strengthing ties with Libya, which can only be a positive. I am not necessarily delighted with companies rolling in and making profits off the back of this but Libya has something to offer and we can improve life for normal Libyans through this.
3. A smaller point but the legal trial and Al Megrahi health bill will have cost the British and more specifically Scottish taxpayer millions. He agreed to drop these to return home.
4. General relations cannot be harmed. A Western country showing a shred of compassion may well make a change to some people. That is to be aimed for.
There is just nothing to gain from seeing him die in hospital in 90 days than at home. Nothing.
you sir have changed my mind. good post.
and geebee, sorry i misunderstood.
saysmydoctor, fuck you.
edit: that was a joke at the end. maybe.
you sir have changed my mind. good post.
and geebee, sorry i misunderstood.
saysmydoctor, fuck you.
edit: that was a joke at the end. maybe.
Haha, no worries, man. Despite our occasional disagreements, you're smarter than your avatar lets on, haha.
saysmydoctor
08/21/09, 04:51 PM
Yes, "fuck you, saysmydoctor" for approaching this conversation calmly and not intruding by attacking another person in the conversation.
mattmatumbo
08/21/09, 05:00 PM
I heard that if the scottish authorities heald him till he died it would bring all of the victims back to life and they didn't do it because they didn't want to do the paper work involved. Not to mention that the UK's socialist health care system couldn't possible handle the strain caused by over 200 people who used to be dead suddenly needing health care.
:lol:
Absolutely hilarious.
MyWorldEntire
08/21/09, 05:04 PM
I would have been able to support this more if he was put under house arrest in Lybia.
OK, I will break down my position for you:
1. The man has three months to live. He no longer poses any sort of threat to anyone. He is still in the middle of a ludicrously lengthy legal trial, on its second appeal. He will either die in a comfy prison here or he dies at home with his family.
As a result of 1, these things can happen:
2. A lot of the Libyan people still believe Al Megrahi to be innocent and indeed the appeal was still rumbling. Sending him back home can only strengthing ties with Libya, which can only be a positive. I am not necessarily delighted with companies rolling in and making profits off the back of this but Libya has something to offer and we can improve life for normal Libyans through this.
3. A smaller point but the legal trial and Al Megrahi health bill will have cost the British and more specifically Scottish taxpayer millions. He agreed to drop these to return home.
4. General relations cannot be harmed. A Western country showing a shred of compassion may well make a change to some people. That is to be aimed for.
There is just nothing to gain from seeing him die in hospital in 90 days than at home. Nothing.
Very intelligent response.
I still can't forgive al Megrahi for the role he played in the gunning down of Doc Brown.
http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/3/31/Back-to-the-Future-AK-47.jpg/500px-Back-to-the-Future-AK-47.jpg
RUN FOR IT, MARTY
vodyanoj
08/21/09, 09:05 PM
maybe saysmydoctor could answer something for me. hopefully. i'd really like to understand you.
why do you argue so hard for the rights and respect of evil people who havent deserved rights and respect...yet you time and again insult and degrade perfectly normal, innocent people on this messageboard? you have more respect for mass murderers and psychopaths than your peers here in this forum.
this man does not deserve to be free because he is GUILTY OF KILLING 270 PEOPLE. let that sink in. now what kind of twisted mind thinks that because he's about to die, we should 'play nice'? and geebee calls this level-headed and intelligent? its completely out of touch with reality.
Everybody has the same rights. Nobody can have them stripped from them, regardles sof their crime. Thinking that rights can be removed from an individual in some way is basically fascism. There is no compromise on that.
And I am with saysmydoctor and GeeBee: I have no sympathy for him as a person, but 3 more months are not going to change anything, nor bring any of the dead back.
vodyanoj
08/21/09, 09:07 PM
Scotland is not too sure of his guilt, keep that in mind...
That too. The trial was a bit of a sham. Not that I really believe that he is innocent, but there is an element of doubt.
Did you read that he has three months to live? I'm not following the train of thought of how inhumanity cures or resolves inhumanity.
There is nothing inhuman about forcing a man who killed 270 people to finish his prison sentence. His family could visit him perfectly well in prison. Oh, he's dying? Tough shit--grow a pair and finish paying your debt to society like a man. That's the least a person could do after heinously killing 270 human beings.
Their answer will be an eye for an eye
An eye for an eye would have been if he had gotten the death penalty.
Just wondering, if a man is about to die, what good does it do the world to keep him locked up? Do you think a dying man is going to go on a killing spree?
It's not a safety issue. It's about making sure justice is served.
Funny, here I am thinking this really shows how intelligent and level-headed saysmydoctor really is.
Do you REALLY think, in the realm of punishment, that 3 extra months (if he's lucky) in a scottish prison (which are pretty swanky from what I've read) is going to take his punishment meter from the already dismal low it was at to "FULLY PUNISHED"? I mean, I've got no sympathy for the guy, but jesus...what's the huge deal, he's dead anyway?
As has been said, the bloodlust for revenge says SO much about society right now. It's mindblowing.
He's served about 20 years in prison. For his punishment to be anywhere near "fully punished" it would have to be, at the very least, triple that amount.
It's not about revenge. I have nothing to seek revenge for. It's about what is just.
Everybody has the same rights. Nobody can have them stripped from them, regardles sof their crime. Thinking that rights can be removed from an individual in some way is basically fascism. There is no compromise on that.
Well, actually rights are stripped from people (rightfully so) who have committed crimes all the time, and I wouldn't call it fascist in the least. Felons often have their right to bear arms and their right to vote relinquished, and I'm sure there are others, too.
vodyanoj
08/21/09, 10:55 PM
Well, actually rights are stripped from people (rightfully so) who have committed crimes all the time, and I wouldn't call it fascist in the least. Felons often have their right to bear arms and their right to vote relinquished, and I'm sure there are others, too.
Locked up is of course a removal of certain rights. However, I was addressing the concept that some people inherently deserve to have ALL rights stripped from them. And, for the record, I am completely opposed to the disenfranchisement of felons.
It's not about revenge. I have nothing to seek revenge for. It's about what is just.
What's just? He'll never get what's just. There's no possible way for him to get what's just. 3 extra months will be a drop in the bucket of the "just" that I would hope he has coming to him. But seriously...do you really think he's gonna "learn his lesson" with three more months? I just can't get any of you to answer what an extra 90 days for a terminal cancer patient is going to do for you.
Aside from the fact that he very well may be simply a patsy who got thrown under the bus by organizations and people far more powerful than he, who roam free every day.
hes trying to clear his name apparently.
What's just? He'll never get what's just. There's no possible way for him to get what's just. 3 extra months will be a drop in the bucket of the "just" that I would hope he has coming to him. But seriously...do you really think he's gonna "learn his lesson" with three more months? I just can't get any of you to answer what an extra 90 days for a terminal cancer patient is going to do for you.
Aside from the fact that he very well may be simply a patsy who got thrown under the bus by organizations and people far more powerful than he, who roam free every day.
It's not about him "learning his lesson." That's not going to happen, and it's also largely a moot point because it presupposes that rehabilitation is the only function of punishment, which it is not. Personally, his continued incarceration would do nothing for me individually. However, "the social function of punishment is to give effect to the emotional outrage of a society whose norms have been breached by the criminal act. A criminal act is identified as that which shocks the social conscience; criminality functions as a way to clarify the moral boundaries of the social group. Punishment is the reciprocal effect of society's moral outrage, generating and maintaining a solidarity that society cannot readily do without." (http://science.jrank.org/pages/10922/Punishment-From-Justification-Explanation.html)
In effect, allowing the man out of prison, even at such a stage in his life, does not hold the moral abhorrence of his act in a high enough regard. 20 years of prison is not enough to provide this "moral clarification."
.invisible ink.
08/22/09, 06:38 AM
In effect, allowing the man out of prison, even at such a stage in his life, does not hold the moral abhorrence of his act in a high enough regard. 20 years of prison is not enough to provide this "moral clarification."
actually, he only served 8 years in prison.
abcdefghijake
08/22/09, 07:01 AM
I just hope he gets to kill someone in these three months.
actually, he only served 8 years in prison.
Huh, don't know where I got 20 from. Thought someone mentioned that, but it could just be that I'm stoned. Either way, that just makes my argument stronger.
It's not about him "learning his lesson." That's not going to happen, and it's also largely a moot point because it presupposes that rehabilitation is the only function of punishment, which it is not. Personally, his continued incarceration would do nothing for me individually. However, "the social function of punishment is to give effect to the emotional outrage of a society whose norms have been breached by the criminal act. A criminal act is identified as that which shocks the social conscience; criminality functions as a way to clarify the moral boundaries of the social group. Punishment is the reciprocal effect of society's moral outrage, generating and maintaining a solidarity that society cannot readily do without." (http://science.jrank.org/pages/10922/Punishment-From-Justification-Explanation.html)
In effect, allowing the man out of prison, even at such a stage in his life, does not hold the moral abhorrence of his act in a high enough regard. 20 years of prison is not enough to provide this "moral clarification."
The bolded proves my point. Can you name a time when society has functioned properly when acting out of a sense of "emotional outrage"? The whole exercise is based on emotion. It's rooted in society's thirst for vengeance and reparations, BOTH of which they'll NEVER get. Even if the dude was tortured to within an inch of his LIFE, there would still be calls that he didn't get enough.
Again...I'm not saying I agree with his release. What I AM saying is that all the people whining about it aren't really interested in justice. If they were, they'd know there's no possible way to EVER get it. What they're interested in is vengeance. I don't trust large groups of people when they're acting out of base emotions.
The bolded proves my point. Can you name a time when society has functioned properly when acting out of a sense of "emotional outrage"? The whole exercise is based on emotion. It's rooted in society's thirst for vengeance and reparations, BOTH of which they'll NEVER get.
Giving effect to the "emotional outrage" of society is a function of all punishment within the legal system. It's a sociological term for a group phenomena, but it doesn't literally mean society is in an emotional rage over a person's crime and is thus acting out of that rage. It's a figurative concept that ranges from minor violations like parking in a fire lane to murder, even though quite obviously no one is going to be "emotionally outraged" over something like someone parking in a fire lane.
Even if the dude was tortured to within an inch of his LIFE, there would still be calls that he didn't get enough.
I don't see how this is relevant, as punishment can only go so far before it's cruel and unusual.
What I AM saying is that all the people whining about it aren't really interested in justice. If they were, they'd know there's no possible way to EVER get it. What they're interested in is vengeance. I don't trust large groups of people when they're acting out of base emotions.
I'm interested in justice. And the definition that you're using of the word is not the way I'm using it. You're saying justice will never be gotten, as in no punishment administered to the man will make up for the crime he did. Using "justice" in this sense is kind of redundant, because it's assumed that a crime like rape or murder can never truly be "made-up" for. I'm saying justice as in society correctly administers a fitting punishment, insofar as this is possible, without being unethical.
You seem to keep alluding that the only argument for keeping this man in jail is an emotional argument of vengeance, which is not at all the case. Someone could just as easily say the argument for releasing him is invalid, because it's based on compassion, and since compassion is an emotion, it's an exercise in emotion.
vodyanoj
08/22/09, 10:52 AM
You seem to keep alluding that the only argument for keeping this man in jail is an emotional argument of vengeance, which is not at all the case. Someone could just as easily say the argument for releasing him is invalid, because it's based on compassion, and since compassion is an emotion, it's an exercise in emotion.
Actually, I would say that the argument for releasing him is primarily financial and political. As was pointed out earlier, he is no longer appealing his conviction (yet another argument can be made here!) and by releasing him a message is sent to Libya (and any other wannabe terrorist sponsor). Sadly, a message is also sent to England, but that is a different story.
Giving effect to the "emotional outrage" of society is a function of all punishment within the legal system. It's a sociological term for a group phenomena, but it doesn't literally mean society is in an emotional rage over a person's crime and is thus acting out of that rage. It's a figurative concept that ranges from minor violations like parking in a fire lane to murder, even though quite obviously no one is going to be "emotionally outraged" over something like someone parking in a fire lane.
I don't see how this is relevant, as punishment can only go so far before it's cruel and unusual.
I'm interested in justice. And the definition that you're using of the word is not the way I'm using it. You're saying justice will never be gotten, as in no punishment administered to the man will make up for the crime he did. Using "justice" in this sense is kind of redundant, because it's assumed that a crime like rape or murder can never truly be "made-up" for. I'm saying justice as in society correctly administers a fitting punishment, insofar as this is possible, without being unethical.
You seem to keep alluding that the only argument for keeping this man in jail is an emotional argument of vengeance, which is not at all the case. Someone could just as easily say the argument for releasing him is invalid, because it's based on compassion, and since compassion is an emotion, it's an exercise in emotion.
My entire and only point in this whole argument is that none of you can come up with an argument AGAINST his release that doesn't appeal to emotions. Any time an appeal to emotion is the strongest case for an argument, you can bet that it's not rational, nor logical.
And again...I don't agree with his release, nor the arguments for "compassion", as much as I DISAGREE with the outrage it's caused.
saysmydoctor
08/22/09, 11:58 AM
Cost-benefit analysis, it would be more expensive for the state to hold him in a cell, medicate him and any other health related issues then it would be to release and make him do it himself.
Cost-benefit analysis, it would be more expensive for the state to hold him in a cell, medicate him and any other health related issues then it would be to release and make him do it himself.
Say if the death penalty didn't cost more than life in prison, would you be for it?
Say if the death penalty didn't cost more than life in prison, would you be for it?
It's counter-intuitive to instruct society that it's wrong to kill...by institutionalized killing.
It's counter-intuitive to instruct society that it's wrong to kill...by institutionalized killing.
Using the same logic in his post, if it's cheaper to kill 'em we might as well just do that, cost-benefit analysis and all.
saysmydoctor
08/22/09, 12:46 PM
The power structure already has the power to incarcerate you, now you want them to have the power to kill?
I'm against the death penalty in principle. It doesn't work, either.
The power structure already has the power to incarcerate you, now you want them to have the power to kill?
I'm against the death penalty in principle. It doesn't work, either.
That was a sarcastic post aimed at you for using a cost-benefit analysis to justify releasing him.
Midget Pirates
08/22/09, 01:04 PM
question: of course he is not the first inmate to develop cancer or other life threatening condition while incarcerated. so, while all these others who have had time left on their sentence have been left to die in prison, a mass murderer got special rights and was released. how is that fair? If Scotland wanted to be so compassionate, why don't they do this all the time? surely they wouldn't let politics play a role in releasing a mass murderer.
saysmydoctor
08/22/09, 01:18 PM
That was a sarcastic post aimed at you for using a cost-benefit analysis to justify releasing him.
And that was a sarcastic post, but considering we are talking about an industry that literally makes money by the amount of people (or in this case, money lost) my rationale makes perfect sense. His release means nothing. He is a dying man. Just let the man die. This is almost beyond the man, what about his family? Don't they deserve a bit of closure as well?
And that was a sarcastic post, but considering we are talking about an industry that literally makes money by the amount of people (or in this case, money lost) my rationale makes perfect sense. His release means nothing. He is a dying man. Just let the man die. This is almost beyond the man, what about his family? Don't they deserve a bit of closure as well?
His release undermines his crime. His family could choose to visit him if he wasn't released, and they'd be just fine. It's not like it would be some terrible experience for them, forever scaring their fragile emotions. People die in hospitals like.. all the time.
Brand-new-123
08/22/09, 01:55 PM
If someone is sentenced to life they should do time until their life is over. Otherwise they should call it serving "a whole bunch of years until we decide you're old or sick enough to be released".
Analog Rebellion
08/22/09, 04:04 PM
The fact that he is old an dying is of no importance. Neither is the corrupt, profiteering prison industry.
I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe in rehabilitation in some cases. I don't believe in private prisons. I've very liberal on this particular issue.
But, he killed 200 people. He deserves to serve life in prison for what he did. I don't see it as dispassionate to let him die in prison instead of going home. I see it as his fair sentence.
Brand-new-123
08/22/09, 04:08 PM
Wow I agree with Playradioplay
blindrider529
08/22/09, 04:41 PM
haha I'm really enjoying this discussion. I see strong points on both sides. I don't think anything bad will come from his release, and maybe even some good (?), but I really don't see how the release is justified. There are a lot of prisoners in the world who could probably be safely released, but you don't just release a criminal because you don't think they'll do anything wrong again (although it is something to be considered, along with the type of crime they are imprisoned for). Part (or most) of a prison sentence is a punishment for crimes already committed.
If his family didn't get a chance to be around him in his dying days, it would suck, but it would be the product of HIS CHOICES. There are many children with fathers in jail and prison, but we don't realease them just because their children and families don't deserve to not have their father. One of the many reasons you shouldn't commit such a serious crime is that you are hurting your family and taking something from them, too. The family of the "criminal" are always victims, too.
secretsociety92
08/22/09, 05:17 PM
270 people dead (11 on the ground), relatives emotionally scarred for life, a town devastated and we are the ones who are not compassionate. I know he could never have served full sentences for each person he killed but he still only got a month in prison for each person. There are many other ways that they could have made it acceptable for him to be in prison with his family. Also how can a crowd of people cheering for him when he landed in Libya be justified.
The fact that he is old an dying is of no importance. Neither is the corrupt, profiteering prison industry.
I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe in rehabilitation in some cases. I don't believe in private prisons. I've very liberal on this particular issue.
But, he killed 200 people. He deserves to serve life in prison for what he did. I don't see it as dispassionate to let him die in prison instead of going home. I see it as his fair sentence.
Yes.
jawstheme
08/22/09, 06:36 PM
After reading through this thread I'm really not sure where I stand on this.
Love As Arson
08/22/09, 06:57 PM
“I vowed that if you harbor a terrorist you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist. That’s a doctrine. In order for this country to be credible, when the President says something, he must mean it.” President George W. Bush, April 10, 2007, American Legion Post 177, Fairfax, Virginia.
“Part of our doctrine is if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorists.” President Bush, April 5, 2007, Fort Irwin, California.
A cell door in New Mexico swung open Thursday and Luis Posada Carriles—a man wanted for an act of terrorist mass murder—went free, making his way to Miami escorted by US Marshals and his lawyer.
So much for the Bush doctrine. Washington is now openly harboring a terrorist who murdered 73 people by organizing the planting of a bomb on a civilian airliner in 1976. The Cuban passenger plane, which had originated in Venezuela, blew up over the Caribbean waters of Barbados. At that time, it constituted the most deadly act of terrorism ever carried out in the Western Hemisphere.
Among the dead were all 24 members of the Cuban fencing team, many of them teenagers, who had just won the 1975 Central American-Caribbean championship. Also killed were several Guyanese medical students, aged 18 and 19.
http://wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/posa-m10.shtml
270 people dead (11 on the ground), relatives emotionally scarred for life, a town devastated and we are the ones who are not compassionate. I know he could never have served full sentences for each person he killed but he still only got a month in prison for each person. There are many other ways that they could have made it acceptable for him to be in prison with his family. Also how can a crowd of people cheering for him when he landed in Libya be justified.
You've read too little into this. The crowd was about a hundred marginal fanatics who were quickly ushered away by authorities. No national news outlets in Libya even covered his homecoming. Look into how terrorists were "received" back in the 80's in Libya, and you'll see that this dude did not get a "hero's welcome". The media just likes making a story.
Skillen
08/22/09, 09:18 PM
The fact that he is old an dying is of no importance. Neither is the corrupt, profiteering prison industry.
I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe in rehabilitation in some cases. I don't believe in private prisons. I've very liberal on this particular issue.
But, he killed 200 people. He deserves to serve life in prison for what he did. I don't see it as dispassionate to let him die in prison instead of going home. I see it as his fair sentence.
No offense, but being scottish people a lot of you yanks need to educate yourselves before holding and opinion. It is Scots LAW that if you are dying and of no threat to the public then you are allowed to be released from prison for the final six months of your life. Last year 27 other people were released under this act and nobody cared. Not to mention but these people were probably actually guilty unlike in this case.
The vast majoruty of people one all chance of there conviction being overturned admit to there crimes. The fact that he is dying and is still protesting his guilt makes me largely doubt it, not to mention the white wash that was his trial.
QuikTrig
08/22/09, 09:37 PM
No offense, but being scottish people a lot of you yanks need to educate yourselves before holding and opinion. It is Scots LAW that if you are dying and of no threat to the public then you are allowed to be released from prison for the final six months of your life. Last year 27 other people were released under this act and nobody cared. Not to mention but these people were probably actually guilty unlike in this case.
The vast majoruty of people one all chance of there conviction being overturned admit to there crimes. The fact that he is dying and is still protesting his guilt makes me largely doubt it, not to mention the white wash that was his trial.
if the convict lives past the six months, what happens?
Analog Rebellion
08/22/09, 11:36 PM
No offense, but being scottish people a lot of you yanks need to educate yourselves before holding and opinion. It is Scots LAW that if you are dying and of no threat to the public then you are allowed to be released from prison for the final six months of your life. Last year 27 other people were released under this act and nobody cared. Not to mention but these people were probably actually guilty unlike in this case.
The vast majoruty of people one all chance of there conviction being overturned admit to there crimes. The fact that he is dying and is still protesting his guilt makes me largely doubt it, not to mention the white wash that was his trial.
And that's precisely why people are angry. I know that this is normal where it is taking place. That doesn't make me disagree with it any less. I'm not about to go make signs and protest, because it's not that big of a deal to me. But, I do disagree with it.
if the convict lives past the six months, what happens?
They're shot.
Machu505
08/23/09, 10:30 AM
I don't think he should have been released and after reading this thread I have found no good reason why he was.
ghostyouare
08/23/09, 11:24 AM
Shouldnt be released.
saysmydoctor
08/23/09, 11:51 AM
The fact that he is old an dying is of no importance. Neither is the corrupt, profiteering prison industry.
I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe in rehabilitation in some cases. I don't believe in private prisons. I've very liberal on this particular issue.
But, he killed 200 people. He deserves to serve life in prison for what he did. I don't see it as dispassionate to let him die in prison instead of going home. I see it as his fair sentence.
I see both of these as being incredibly important.
Analog Rebellion
08/23/09, 01:06 PM
I see both of these as being incredibly important.
The corrupt, profiteering prison industry has nothing to do with this since Scottish prisons are run by the Scottish Prison Service, a government agency, not a private company that is profiting from the imprisonment of criminals. (There are about 300 private prisons in the US, and about 10 in the UK).
The first point is based on opinion. Apparently you think it's ok for someone to murder hundreds of people and still be granted the right to die respectably in the close company of family members. I do not. He forfeited that right when he consciously and purposefully murdered 269 men, women, and children. He knew what he was doing, and he knew there would be consequences. He's not some halfwit that got into a car and accidentally ran over a neighborhood kid riding a bike. He is a mass murderer.
Skillen
08/23/09, 01:08 PM
Okay, I want to address one major point, do the majority of people actually think he is guilty. Lets have a run down of the trial:
1) Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out.
2) The whole case was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.
3) The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony.
4) A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. We have to look more closely into the chance that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.
5)There was no jury at that trial, only three politically appointed judges of the Lord Advocate - a political appointee of the British government. The reason was that, as Professor Black has said, no jury would have produced the guilty verdict the British and American governments wanted, because there was no evidence against Megrahi - only a bribed witness and some conspiracy theories presented as "evidence"
saysmydoctor
08/23/09, 01:11 PM
The corrupt, profiteering prison industry has nothing to do with this since Scottish prisons are run by the Scottish Prison Service, a government agency, not a private company that is profiting from the imprisonment of criminals. (There are about 300 private prisons in the US, and about 10 in the UK).
The first point is based on opinion. Apparently you think it's ok for someone to murder hundreds of people and still be granted the right to die respectably in the close company of family members. I do not. He forfeited that right when he consciously and purposefully murdered 269 men, women, and children. He knew what he was doing, and he knew there would be consequences. He's not some halfwit that got into a car and accidentally ran over a neighborhood kid riding a bike. He is a mass murderer.
I mean the criminal justice system in its entirety in any form is self-preserving. That's the nature of bureaucracy. Corruption can happen in government as well, as well as profiteering--see: USPS.
Rights are not forfeited, they are taken.
saysmydoctor
08/23/09, 01:12 PM
Okay, I want to address one major point, do the majority of people actually think he is guilty. Lets have a run down of the trial:
1) Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out.
2) The whole case was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.
3) The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony.
4) A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. We have to look more closely into the chance that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.
5)There was no jury at that trial, only three politically appointed judges of the Lord Advocate - a political appointee of the British government. The reason was that, as Professor Black has said, no jury would have produced the guilty verdict the British and American governments wanted, because there was no evidence against Megrahi - only a bribed witness and some conspiracy theories presented as "evidence"
I never knew any of this. This is utterly fascinating. Good to know.
Analog Rebellion
08/23/09, 01:31 PM
I mean the criminal justice system in its entirety in any form is self-preserving. That's the nature of bureaucracy. Corruption can happen in government as well, as well as profiteering--see: USPS.
Indeed. Human beings are inherently greedy and corrupt. That doesn't undermine every single thing we do, however.
Rights are not forfeited, they are taken.
What kind of stupid, new age bull shit is that? A human being absolutely forfeits their rights when they infringe the rights of other human beings by killing them. That is a very basic part of our moral code.
I never knew any of this. This is utterly fascinating. Good to know.
And to think... this entire time you were defending a properly-convicted mass murderer ;-)
saysmydoctor
08/23/09, 01:35 PM
Indeed. Human beings are inherently greedy and corrupt. That doesn't undermine every single thing we do, however.
What kind of stupid, new age bull shit is that? A human being absolutely forfeits their rights when they infringe the rights of other human beings by killing them. That is a very basic part of our moral code.
And to think... this entire time you were defending a properly-convicted mass murderer ;-)
I don't believe this.
No, they don't. The power structure takes away those rights from them. You just argued human beings are greedy and corrupt. I'd argue, that concerning their rights, of course they are. That is instinct. So for you to argue they would give up certain rights because they killed someone--as if they are implementing punishment upon themselves, seems ridiculous to me. The government takes their rights.
I'm not defending anyone. What he did was wrong. Keeping a dying man in jail is just as wrong. You aren't going to cure inhumanity with inhumanity.
Analog Rebellion
08/23/09, 01:44 PM
I don't believe this.
No, they don't. The power structure takes away those rights from them. You just argued human beings are greedy and corrupt. I'd argue, that concerning their rights, of course they are. That is instinct. So for you to argue they would give up certain rights because they killed someone--as if they are implementing punishment upon themselves, seems ridiculous to me. The government takes their rights.
I'm not defending anyone. What he did was wrong. Keeping a dying man in jail is just as wrong. You aren't going to cure inhumanity with inhumanity.
Yes, human beings absolutely punish themselves when they commit murder. Did the government make that person commit murder? No. The murderer decided that for them self out of free will. I would venture to say that 98% of murderers know what they are doing is wrong. So, for you to say it is the government that is choosing to strip that person of their rights is ludicrous. It is not the government's choice to commit an act that is deemed immoral by society.
It is not inhumane to feed someone, provide them with medical care, and provide them with shelter, clothing, and activities, and even contact with their family up until they die a natural death. Why do you think dying naturally is so inhumane? 100% of people that live will also die.
Skillen
08/23/09, 02:22 PM
Yes, human beings absolutely punish themselves when they commit murder. Did the government make that person commit murder? No. The murderer decided that for them self out of free will. I would venture to say that 98% of murderers know what they are doing is wrong. So, for you to say it is the government that is choosing to strip that person of their rights is ludicrous. It is not the government's choice to commit an act that is deemed immoral by society.
It is not inhumane to feed someone, provide them with medical care, and provide them with shelter, clothing, and activities, and even contact with their family up until they die a natural death. Why do you think dying naturally is so inhumane? 100% of people that live will also die.
Well, sometimes murder isn't comitted under their own free wil (duressl and the bits in bold makes no sense to the arguement. Not to mention the way you described prison makes it sound more like a luxurious holiday than taking someones freedom.
Murder isn't always commited with free will, many are commited under duress. Inhumane really has nothing to do with it, he was released through compassion and mercy. I ask what is the point of the justice system, to protect the public and rehabilitation of the prisoners. As he was deemed to be no danger to the public, something nobody has questioned, what good would it do to kep him in jail.
The only arguement I have seen is that it shows weakness to other terrorists. As many terror attacks are committed by suicide boomers, is this really a reasonable arguement. All it shows is that if they get caught and then are diagnosed with a terminal illness they may be released. I don't see this being a major rallying point for fundamentalists in the near future.
P.S. The parts in bold make little to no-sense in the current discussion.
ShShShark
08/23/09, 05:31 PM
But seriously...at this point, squeezing 90 more days out of this sorry prick will not bring anybody much more closure, will it?
probably not. but I don't think that it makes it ok, either.
This is not a capital punishment issue, so i find the "eye for an eye" statement really doesn't apply here. He was a criminal, he was convicted, he should serve the full sentence. If that means he dies in a cell, then he dies in a cell. I find it funny that people talk about compassion in regards to a man that is responsible for the death of 200 people.
Brand-new-123
08/23/09, 05:38 PM
probably not. but I don't think that it makes it ok, either.
This is not a capital punishment issue, so i find the "eye for an eye" statement really doesn't apply here. He was a criminal, he was convicted, he should serve the full sentence. If that means he dies in a cell, then he dies in a cell. I find it funny that people talk about compassion in regards to a man that is responsible for the death of 200 people.
THIS
probably not. but I don't think that it makes it ok, either.
This is not a capital punishment issue, so i find the "eye for an eye" statement really doesn't apply here. He was a criminal, he was convicted, he should serve the full sentence. If that means he dies in a cell, then he dies in a cell. I find it funny that people talk about compassion in regards to a man that is responsible for the death of 200 people.
I agree totally. I don't agree with his release, nor do I beleive he's due any sort of compassion. I simply think all the outrage is largely just vengeful and needless.
My two favourite things about this thread are that 1) the Scottish dude, who ostensibly knows the most about the case and who is one of the very few people who has brought anything to it outside of personal opinion is by an large being ignored, and 2) nearly every post in this thread can be reduced to "I hold opinion X because I hold opinion X".
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
08/24/09, 06:18 AM
My two favourite things about this thread are that 1) the Scottish dude, who ostensibly knows the most about the case and who is one of the very few people who has brought anything to it outside of personal opinion is by an large being ignored, and 2) nearly every post in this thread can be reduced to "I hold opinion X because I hold opinion X".
he's being ignored because knowing a lot about the case and how the man might really be innocent is completely irrelevant. he was convicted. in the eyes of the law he is guilty of murdering 270 people. because he is sick though, his sentence has been reduced to basicly 3 months per person killed.
do you think 3 months in jail is reasonable punishment for murder? no. but he's sick and dying? doesn't change a thing.
he isn't being tortured in jail. he isn't being denied access to his family. there is nothing inhumane about his imprisonment. if you take exception to his conviction, thats a different story and has no bearing on this issue.
paper halo
08/24/09, 12:11 PM
This is starting to piss me off.
Apparently, the whole of Britain is to be held accountable for the Scottish decision: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8218299.stm
saysmydoctor
08/24/09, 12:12 PM
he's being ignored because knowing a lot about the case and how the man might really be innocent is completely irrelevant. he was convicted. in the eyes of the law he is guilty of murdering 270 people. because he is sick though, his sentence has been reduced to basicly 3 months per person killed.
do you think 3 months in jail is reasonable punishment for murder? no. but he's sick and dying? doesn't change a thing.
he isn't being tortured in jail. he isn't being denied access to his family. there is nothing inhumane about his imprisonment. if you take exception to his conviction, thats a different story and has no bearing on this issue.
Well, his conviction led to his incarceration. It has everything to do with this.
Jefferson Rank
08/24/09, 12:18 PM
This just seems like the US making a fuss over something that's more cultural then anything. Scotland has been doing this for a while, and if anything horrible had come from it they would have repealed the law already. Give the man his three months.
he's being ignored because knowing a lot about the case and how the man might really be innocent is completely irrelevant. he was convicted. in the eyes of the law he is guilty of murdering 270 people. because he is sick though, his sentence has been reduced to basicly 3 months per person killed.
do you think 3 months in jail is reasonable punishment for murder? no. but he's sick and dying? doesn't change a thing.
he isn't being tortured in jail. he isn't being denied access to his family. there is nothing inhumane about his imprisonment. if you take exception to his conviction, thats a different story and has no bearing on this issue.
I guess you missed ther part then, where in Scottland, in the eyes of law, people with less than 6 monthes to live, should and must be released from prison. I mean, if the only thing relevant here are the eyes of the law then it only makes sense that noboidy would be upset about Scottish authorities following Scottish law. Obviously this goes a little deeper than the eyes of the law or else this wouldn't even be a discussion in the first place.
This is starting to piss me off.
Apparently The whole of Britain is to be held accountable for the Scottish decision: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8218299.stm
Well to be fair, it's a bit much to expect that anybody would take the 12 seconds to wiki how government structures operate in their own country, much less an other one.
I guess you missed ther part then, where in Scottland, in the eyes of law, people with less than 6 monthes to live, should and must be released from prison. I mean, if the only thing relevant here are the eyes of the law then it only makes sense that noboidy would be upset about Scottish authorities following Scottish law. Obviously this goes a little deeper than the eyes of the law or else this wouldn't even be a discussion in the first place.
I usually try to watch Cops and Law and Order with the eyes of the law. It makes for a more satisfying viewing experience.
vodyanoj
08/24/09, 05:17 PM
he's being ignored because knowing a lot about the case and how the man might really be innocent is completely irrelevant. he was convicted. in the eyes of the law he is guilty of murdering 270 people. because he is sick though, his sentence has been reduced to basicly 3 months per person killed.
do you think 3 months in jail is reasonable punishment for murder? no. but he's sick and dying? doesn't change a thing.
he isn't being tortured in jail. he isn't being denied access to his family. there is nothing inhumane about his imprisonment. if you take exception to his conviction, thats a different story and has no bearing on this issue.
You missed the point: it is the Scottish law that requires prisoners with terminal illnesses to be released. Quite simply, Scotland applied its own law. Should they ahve made an exception in this case?
paper halo
08/24/09, 05:29 PM
Well to be fair, it's a bit much to expect that anybody would take the 12 seconds to wiki how government structures operate in their own country, much less an other one.
Understandable. Facts should never get in the way of moral outrage.
Skillen
08/25/09, 06:13 AM
Understandable. Facts should never get in the way of moral outrage.
Exactly, not to mention that the U.S. government took the torturing of unconvicted prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in its stride. Yet, more outrage ensues when the Scottish government releases a dying man from prison.
P.S. No-one mention that he was guilty of killing all those people though, as it has been discussed above. He probably didn't do it, there certainly isn't enough evidence to prove he done it. Yes, the law says he did, but it also says he should be released. (good point zach, by any chance is you're spoon too big?)
Liz_who?
08/26/09, 01:33 AM
Scotland is retarded. Its always nice to reward the mass murderers in the world.
open mind
08/26/09, 03:07 AM
Scotland is retarded. Its always nice to reward the mass murderers in the world.
give it up for uninformed, knee jerk reactions everybody.
give it up for uninformed, knee jerk reactions everybody.
:appl:
Midget Pirates
04/04/10, 11:31 AM
Did you read that he has three months to live?
Do you REALLY think, in the realm of punishment, that 3 extra months (if he's lucky)
He's going to die in three months anyways. Let him die.
"Since returning to the love of family and friends, he has made a remarkable recovery," a diplomatic source told the (London (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/London+%28England%29)) Daily Mail.Last week, Megrahi blocked the public release of his medical records.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/02/2010-04-02_bday_party_from_hell_bash_for_dy ing_lockerbie_bomber_sickens_vics_k in.html
In the event that he miraculously gets better, does he go back to jail?
good question.
saysmydoctor
04/04/10, 01:47 PM
"Since returning to the love of family and friends, he has made a remarkable recovery," a diplomatic source told the (London (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/London+%28England%29)) Daily Mail.Last week, Megrahi blocked the public release of his medical records.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/02/2010-04-02_bday_party_from_hell_bash_for_dy ing_lockerbie_bomber_sickens_vics_k in.html
good question.
I still don't care.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.