h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm afraid that I'm suffering a knee-jerk reaction to the American comments on this.

Which involve words like Noraid and how-do-you-like-it-now?

But what does the rest of hootoo think (and let's not descend into nation bashing...)

ah 9/11 but were happy for IRA bombs to happen in UK. Perhaps if bombing was in USA things would have been differant.

I'm personally unsure about the decision, but I'm rather sure about the wrongness of the American position and the Meuller letter in particular.
The responsibility of judgement is a terrible fate in itself, and America as a nation is far too ready to presume it.
Camp Zeist didn't resolve what happened at Lockerbie any more than Guantanemo Bay resolved 9/11.
A hundred million dollars didn't put right the shooting down of IA655 and the place of al-Megrahi's death won't put right the bombing of PA103.
Presumably the more delusional among our neighbours assume that America's superior medicine would have ensured survivors too.
Sometimes we just have to ignore the howlings from Gotham, and live our own lives the truest way we can.

I get a bit irked by the "Compassionate release? What compassion did he ever show!" reaction.

And I say "Exactly. Do we as a so-called civilised society want to base our behaviour on what a terrorist does?"

So much for the "no nation bashing"

People are overlooking the fact that Megrahi's release has been criticised by all the main political parties.

The Scottish Labour leader said: “If I was First Minister Megrahi would not be going back to Libya. The decision to release him is wrong"

Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokesman Robert Brown said the decision was "wrong in principle, wrong in practice and sets the wrong precedent.

Conservative leader David Cameron has condemned the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as "completely nonsensical"

The SNP have indulged in a bit of willy-waving. This single-issue party have deliberately taken a contrary position to focus attention upon themselves. Every time the international media mentions "Scottish Government", it lends weight and a false legitimacy to the Nationalists.

How on earth a so-called Justice Secretary can allow the release of the worst mass-murderer in Scotland's modern history on emotional grounds beggars belief.

Now the tin-foil hat brigade and conspiracy nuts can have a field day.

a compromise might have been a release to a uk nursing home while being banned from leaving country to avoid that nausiating heroes welcome over there.

Personally, I cant stand the fact that it's a subject that so many people are getting quite so upset about when it actually doesn't have that much to do with a lot of them except in principle.

I do think showing a little more dignity in showing compassion would perhaps be pleasant.

i also feel that the rather heavy tang of political manouvering in the air taints it all a bit and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

>>>People are overlooking the fact that Megrahi's release has been criticised by all the main political parties.


Yup, but that's the beauty of politics... If you're in power, you have to make the tough decisions... If you're not actually in power, you can just make yourself look popular all the time by waiting to see which way 'public opinion' (i.e.: the media) swings and critisize any unpopular decisions made by your opponents...

Frankly, the guy's dieing... What does it matter where he dies to anyone apart from himself... And to have someone spend their last days in a prison cell thousands of miles from their home strikes me as more than a little inhumane...

As has been said - do we have to be as bad as the terrorists or isnt it a victory for our society if we show ourselves to be more compassionate than they are?

Some good points already made.

My tuppence worth:

I tend to weigh in on the side of believing that we must not let ourselves descend to the level of behaviour shown by terrorists.

But, call me a cynical old bat, I do wonder just how much of an effect trade with Libya had on the decision.

That Megrahi was welcomed back with such pomp does rather stick in the craw.

Did anyone hear me shouting at the radio last week?
Some political commentator from the other side of the pond was protesting how disgraceful it was that the decision about Megrahi should be left to a provincial government.
Ahem. Scottish Parliament, thank you; not a province.

But... how much does potential trade with China prevent countries like the US tone down their requests for more human rights?

Everyone is at it. It's not ok for the pot to call the kettle black.

My take on it is that I'm not 100% convinced he acted alone. He was found guilty and has been jailed. Now it is time for us to show our humane side and not punish his family members who want to be near him at this time.

Of course I don't approve of the heroe's welcome he received - I think that was tasteless and hasn't helped Libya make friends.

<< Now it is time for us to show our humane side and not punish his family members who want to be near him at this time.>>

His wife has been living at a secure location in Scotland for almost ten years.

<>

Of the three statements I've quoted, one was made before the decision was made. In fact, virtually every political voice in Scotland bar the Nationalists cautioned against releasing Megrahi the moment it became an issue again.

Oh I didn't know that SWL.

Hmmmm... releasing him under those circumstances is a bit suspect.

But then - the remark about our attitude to trade with China and our condemnation of their human rights record still stands. Governments do what they like most of the time.

I'm usually in favour of compassionate release, but I don't think it should apply in this case. The guy murdered 270 people in cold blood: it was a crime against humanity and, I'm sorry, but someone like that doesn't deserve compassion.

I'm not advocating that we should have brought back the death penalty, or that he should have been tortured or anything like that, but given the magnitude of his crime, the fact that he has never shown or expressed remorse, making him spend the rest of his life in a cell where he's fed and looked after, where he would receive good medical care so his disease could be dealt with, is not an unreasonable thing to do.

It's not about having better standards than a terrorist, we've already shown we have those: he was given the full protection and use of the law. Millions have been spent protecting him and keeping him alive. The Scottish prison system is humane and he could see his family.

This might make me a bad liberal, but the guy should have died in his cell and I think those responsible for releasing him should have to speak to the relatives of his victims and make their case in person.

My comments must not be construed as implying any criticism, I simply want to get at the underlying realities. Of course there is the emotional side, well expressed in this discussion; I have my own strong feelings and reaction, but preferring at this stage to suppress them.
What troubles me is what underlies the decision to release a convicted criminal. Although there are very important issues raised, I do not wish here to comment on national and international politics, international trade and other interests, terrorism and how to deal with it, sympathy and empathy with the victims of a crime, consideration for the criminal, the opinions of all the experts (all different!), and what the resultant ramifications will be. There will never be agreement on all that because we all have different standards. I want to know is what justice actually is in this context.
There must be an empirical definition for justice. I may be wrong, but surely justice itself is entirely different from subjective considerations because, by definition, everyone is likely to have varying views.
I therefore want to know: is justice entirely separate from the following? :
morality,
what is right or wrong,
what is expedient,
what is fair,
the victims’ families,
compassion (in this particular case this seems to me to be completely out of place),
mercy,
grace ,
penalty (if the death penalty were still in force, this discussion would be irrelevant)

Maybe I am asking this in the wrong place – if so, please can somebody guide me.

>> ...is justice entirely separate from the following? :
morality,
what is right or wrong,
what is expedient,
what is fair,
the victims families,
compassion... <<

May I point out, for purely informational purposes, the idea that 'justice is blind' is actually a reference to the concept that 'justice' should be held above the prejudices of the obvious, the known, the visible or the familiar.

Justice (the 'goddess') was depicted as being blindfolded so that it would not be possible for the judges to 'see' who they were trying and allow their own prejudices or fears to take hold. In fact many courts were held in darkness so that the face of the accused could not be seen. It was hoped this eliminated prejudgment and limited the possible influence from friends and family and politicians. Blind justice was seen as a good thing. (Today however one should always wear your Sunday best when making an appearance before the bench .)

(Interestingly, but somewhat off-topic, 'Love' is also said to be blind, because the statues of 'Venus' posted outside brothels (in the same way 'neon signs' today call attention to the business done within) were often 'blindfolded' offering an assurance that the girls would not knowingly recognise or willfully identify their clientele.)


Personally, I think the 'compassion' we are hearing about now comes from the fact that he was unlikely the only one involved and the lingering doubts of what part he actually played. The conviction was based on the fact of some baggage found in the wreckage which was traced to purchases he had made. Beyond that there was nothing to show that he had any further connection to said luggage or its contents. In any case he hardly acted alone and that fact alone would tend to niggle away at the conscience when condemning him to die in a cell.

I have to agree with Strangely that the nursing home option was probably best. From what I've seen of them it would have been marginally less cruel. There is also the difficulty and potential dangers in keeping and administering pain relieving drugs in a prison cell as opposed to the quasi-medical set-up of nursing homes.

~jwf~

As a liberal who lost no-one dear to me in the bombing I would fall on the side of several people who have fallen on the side of compassion.

Compassion - a civilised quality.

Justice - a civilised quality.

Vengeance - not a civilised quality.

If this man had been convicted in some countries he would have received a prison sentence of hundreds of years (bizarre!) or the death penalty - not a civilized resolution. In my woolly liberal view.

Although unpopular, I think the right decision has been reached.

PP

A toughy, if he really was guilty, screw him and justice, let him rot in jail, if you can't do the time don't do the crime(etc) 1,000s of people were affected by the bombing. I would happily hang on to my 'humanity' and keep him in jail. It sends out a signal to others. I am fed up with the criminal having more rights than the victim.

How ever, if he was set up as a patsy by Lybia and the UK and the US, hmmmmm, maybe he should be let out or maybe not...didn't Gaddafi hand him over?

Jim Swire certainly doesn't believe he did it. The mount of evidence, supposedly, withheld that would cast huge doubt on him being found guilty is...dodgy in the least.

Only one man has been found who 'did the bombing' 'who murdered over 250 people' strange how no others were found...and the evidence on this guy was him being their tailor...?

And the release is just as dodgy...every one saying how terrible it is but also realising it means opening dialogue for Libyan oil again.


Right?
Wrong?
Politics?

Wasn't he in the process of appealing against the conviction anyway? Where did I put my copy of Private Eye?

I would prefer to live in a society that opts for compassion over vengeance and in that sense don't have a problem with his release. But I would also prefer it if the decision to release had been made by a judge rather than a politician.

Mol

This was nothing to do with compassion but more to do with trade deals. Gadaffis son spoke the truth about the deals. The reason the Libyan people welcomed him in such a way is they all believe he is innocent which is likely to be true.

In a time of recession, a few more jobs for British people after this release is most welcome.