Libyan Pan Am 103 bomber released.

SeanW

Sometimes I see things in this world that make me yell "What the f***"

One of them happened a few days ago. The Scottish Justice people let Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only person ever convicted of the bombing, go free on "compassionate grounds" because he has terminal prostate cancer. He wanted to die at home.

Well boo-****ing-hoo.

The 270 innocent civilians he slaughtered for no reason did not get that luxury, the bastard should have died in jail, which true 'justice' had demanded.

It came as a disappointment, but not a surprise, to see yesterday that he returned to Libya - not only to not be regarded as a national disgrace - but to a rapturous heroes welcome with thousands in a cheering crowd and, from what I heard, escorted off the plane by Col. Gadaffi's son!

I'd like to borrow some of whatever they're smoking out there in Scotland. It's obviously good stuff :mad:

silverharp

i'll ask the question without having much knowledge of the case, but was it a slam dunk that he was guilty?

oscarBravo

He was convicted. Legally, he's guilty.

Gruffalo

SeanW wrote: »

Sometimes I see things in this world that make me yell "What the f***"

One of them happened a few days ago. The Scottish Justice people let Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only person ever convicted of the bombing, go free on "compassionate grounds" because he has terminal prostate cancer. He wanted to die at home.

Well boo-****ing-hoo.

The 270 innocent civilians he slaughtered for no reason did not get that luxury, the bastard should have died in jail, which true 'justice' had demanded.

It came as a disappointment, but not a surprise, to see yesterday that he returned to Libya - not only to not be regarded as a national disgrace - but to a rapturous heroes welcome with thousands in a cheering crowd and, from what I heard, escorted off the plane by Col. Gadaffi's son!

I'd like to borrow some of whatever they're smoking out there in Scotland. It's obviously good stuff :mad:

Maybe you should consider some of the things that have happened in this case:

• He dropped his request for an appeal and instead asked to be transferred to Libya so that he could die there.
• Despite this they decided to release him.
• This begs the question, were the Brits afraid of what might come out if there was an appeal?
• At the time the chief suspects were Iran as it was believed to be retaliation against the Americans.
• A number of others claimed responsibility for the attack.

The following articles are worth reading. Be warned they are on Wikipedia but it might be worth checking out the citations:

New information casting fresh doubts about Megrahi's conviction was examined at a procedural hearing at the Judicial Appeal Court (Court of Session building) in Edinburgh on 11 October 2007:

1. His lawyers claim that vital documents, which emanate from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and relate to the Mebo timer that allegedly detonated the Lockerbie bomb, were withheld from the trial defence team.[16]
2. Tony Gauci, chief prosecution witness at the trial, is alleged to have been paid $2 million for testifying against Megrahi.[17]
3. Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, has claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya.[18]
4. Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore an affidavit in July 2007 that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to "a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case".[19]

On 1 November 2007 Megrahi invited Robert Black QC to visit him at Her Majesty's Prison, Greenock. After a 2-hour meeting, Black stated "that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi

and

According to a CIA analysis dated 22 December 1988, several groups were quick to claim responsibility in telephone calls in the United States and Europe:

• A male caller claimed that a group called the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution had destroyed the plane in retaliation for the U.S. shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 in the Persian Gulf the previous July.
• A caller claiming to represent the Islamic Jihad organization told ABC News in New York that the group had planted the bomb to commemorate Christmas.
• The Ulster Defence League allegedly issued a telephonic claim.

After finishing this list, the author stated, "We consider the claims from the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution as the most credible one received so far". The analysis concluded, "We cannot assign responsibility for this tragedy to any terrorist group at this time. We anticipate that, as often happens, many groups will seek to claim credit".[28][29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Claims_of_responsibility

To say that the case against this man was paper thin would be a serious understatement and given the strange circumstances under which he was released one might reasonably question if there was even the slightest chance that he was guilty.

Joey the lips

I see a lot of things about this and am glad the case was raised

1. I see the scots as right. It shows that even though he was not compasionate they are. Additionally its easier to repatriate a live body than a dead one

2. The american media should not have broadcast the home pictures as they knew it would be distressing

3. The libyan govt should not have allowed such a public gathering and the scottish govt should have got there word.

Gruffalo

oscarBravo wrote: »

He was convicted. Legally, he's guilty.

Of course and history has shown that we can take the British Justice systems word for who is guilty. Oh actually, it has shown the opposite. Were the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 et al guilty just because some clown in a wig sent them down?

It wasn't me!

Gruffalo wrote: »

Of course and history has shown that we can take the British Justice systems word for who is guilty. Oh actually, it has shown the opposite. Were the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 et al guilty just because some clown in a wig sent them down?

Is everyone else that judge, or any judge for that matter, convicted innocent? What would you say the ratio is?

Gruffalo

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Is everyone else that judge, or any judge for that matter, convicted innocent? What would you say the ratio is?

What are you talking about?

I made a point in response to a claim that he was legally guilty. The whole idea of legal guilt means little. Either the guy was guilty or he was not and the evidence in this case, if you want to bother reading it, suggests that the case against him is paper thin. Now giving the mysterious circumstances under which he was released it is reasonable to question whether he was guilty i.e. did he do it. That it the only form of guilt that matters.

The history of the British judicial system shows that it is a long way from failsafe and often corrupt; from police forces that shoot innocent men on trains, to police forces that forge confessions; from police forces that are found to be institutionally racist to diplock trials and interment; from facilitation of extrordinary rendition, to police forces that allow loyalist paramilitary flags fly outside their station and allow loyalist marches where loyalist paramilitary flags are flown freely etc. etc. etc.

Now if you go back and read my original comment, I never said every judge, cop or politician was guilty. I merely pointed out that the record of the British Justice system is so poor enough to render the notion of "legal guilt" to be irrelevant. All that matters is whether the man did it or not; not whether a court found him guilty. The evidence in this case suggests that his conviction was far from water tight.

worldrepublic

This was on RTE six one -they said there is some evidence that the UK got a nice energy deal out of the transfer.

Gruffalo

worldrepublic wrote: »

This was on RTE six one -they said there is some evidence that the UK got a nice energy deal out of the transfer.

Let's all pretend to be shocked.

Bottle_of_Smoke

In legal terms I'd say its wrong. I think certain crimes should be exempt from compassionary leave.

On the other hand I think his conviction was dodgy so not overly annoyed about this

Nodin

It might be better if such things were decided by judicial review, rather than Politicians.....

dresden8

Nodin wrote: »

It might be better if such things were decided by judicial review, rather than Politicians.....

Who appoints the judges?

worldrepublic

Who is more likely to take a brown envelope (or two, or three...) politicians, or judges?

A Dub in Glasgo

Oh no, a delayed reaction of feigned outrage

The Scottish Government done the Scottish people pround. The only downside is the quid pro quo requirement for Megrahi to drop his appeal. Anybody with a bit of knowlegde of this case will see that this case is built on quicksand with some vested interests shoring it up.

JoeJC

I think its doubtless that this is a political move on the part of Britain. The whole affair is not one of compassion but one of diplomatic and economic opportunity for Britain.

If he is guilty, I still support his release. The OP should realise that two wrongs dont make a right and that making this man die in a foreign, alien environment is not going to change a thing. The man is terminally ill and is going to die soon. If we as a civilisation believe that we are morally above the Lockerby bomber then we should show some humanity to this feeble, dying man who poses no risk whatsoever to society. And thats the point of prison isnt it? To rehabilitate someone so that they no longer pose a threat to society?

The families of the Lockerby victims have at least received some form of compensation by this man's imprisonment thus far. The families of those Iranians who were blown out of the sky by the US before Lockerby have received nothing but the OP doesnt really seem to care about this. Nor has Gaddafi received any compensation for the death of his adopted daughter who was blown up by the US airforce during air raids on Tripoli in 1986.

oscarBravo

Gruffalo wrote: »

All that matters is whether the man did it or not; not whether a court found him guilty.

Naturally, an Internet discussion forum is a much more reliable judge of innocence or guilt than a court of law.

wes

oscarBravo wrote: »

Naturally, an Internet discussion forum is a much more reliable judge of innocence or guilt than a court of law.

I would normally agree with you, but his trial had no jury, which make his conviction stink imho.

oscarBravo

Trial by jury is the norm in common law jurisdictions, but by no means in others.

wes

oscarBravo wrote: »

Trial by jury is the norm in common law jurisdictions, but by no means in others.

It is the norm in Scotland, and to see it not being implemented in this one trial, seems strange to me.

Gruffalo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Naturally, an Internet discussion forum is a much more reliable judge of innocence or guilt than a court of law.

What are you raving about? I never said that so am I to assume that you really think that or did you just type the first thing that popped into your head?

oscarBravo

wes wrote: »

It is the norm in Scotland, and to see it not being implemented in this one trial, seems strange to me.

The trial was held in the Netherlands, under a specially-drafted treaty. It wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill criminal trial.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Naturally, an Internet discussion forum is a much more reliable judge of innocence or guilt than a court of law.

Considering this is an internet discussion, what is your view of the case?

Just as well Chris Mullin, Gareth Pierce, World in Action, Christy Moore (and plenty of others) did not blindly accept that once a court gives a judgement, a miscarraige of justice did not happen or is that such 'an appalling vista' that people should just accept these things?.

wes

oscarBravo wrote: »

The trial was held in the Netherlands, under a specially-drafted treaty. It wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill criminal trial.

True enough, but the territory was part of Scotland for the duration of the trial, so why wasn't a jury flown in? They went to a great deal of trouble to get the thing under Scottish jurisdiction, but then decided on no jury.

Gruffalo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Trial by jury is the norm in common law jurisdictions, but by no means in others.

In British terms trial without jury gets used where there is controversy.It was used in the North along with internment, they called it Diplock trials. They even tried to used it against 9 peace protestors in Derry a few years ago.

I dont know why Scottish law has this fellow tried without a jury but it just furthers the suspicion.

Trials without jury provide more opportunity for a whitewash verdict and as such are dangerous to civil rights. Were they part of the recent criminal justice bill.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Considering this is an internet discussion, what is your view of the case?

If he's innocent, I would rather have seen that established through an appeal process than to have a legally-guilty man released to a hero's welcome.

Just as well Chris Mullin, Gareth Pierce, World in Action, Christy Moore (and plenty of others) did not blindly accept that once a court gives a judgement, a miscarraige of justice did not happen or is that such 'an appalling vista' that people should just accept these things?.

I'm not saying a miscarriage of justice didn't happen. I'm saying it hasn't been established that a miscarriage of justice happened, and until such time as is legally established to the contrary, he's guilty in law.

If you don't accept that principle, then everyone in prison is the victim of a miscarriage of justice that hasn't been established yet.

Gruffalo

oscarBravo wrote: »

The trial was held in the Netherlands, under a specially-drafted treaty. It wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill criminal trial.

But it was under Scottish law that he was convicted.The treaty was simply to allow the case take place in the Netherlands.

oscarBravo

Gruffalo wrote: »

What are you raving about? I never said that so am I to assume that you really think that or did you just type the first thing that popped into your head?

I'm sorry, I forgot to agree uncritically with your perspective on the matter. Please forgive me.

oscarBravo

Gruffalo wrote: »

But it was under Scottish law that he was convicted.The treaty was simply to allow the case take place in the Netherlands.

...and, presumably, to allow it to take place without a jury.

oscarBravo

Gruffalo wrote: »

Trials without jury provide more opportunity for a whitewash verdict and as such are dangerous to civil rights.

So every criminal conviction in Germany is unsafe?

A Dub in Glasgo

An article from Professor Robert Black; taken from the Herald in Glasgow the other day

This shameful miscarriage has gravely sullied the Scottish criminal justice system

http://img44.imageshack.us/i/p1010024y.jpg/

http://img297.imageshack.us/i/p1010026y.jpg/

Professor Robert Black wrote:

I am absolutely convinced that if the evidence had come out in front of a Scottish jury of 15 there is absolutely no way he would have been convicted

Gruffalo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If he's innocent, I would rather have seen that established through an appeal process than to have a legally-guilty man released to a hero's welcome.

Fair enough but does it not make you wonder why he suddenly dropped his request for an appeal and despite this was still released. Had they something to hide?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If he's innocent, I would rather have seen that established through an appeal process than to have a legally-guilty man released to a hero's welcome.

The Scottish legal system has dragged this one out for years. He would have died in Greenock before an appeal was finished. One of the pre-requisites for the compassionate release was for Mergrahi to drop his appeal.

Seem strange?

There should be a public inquiry into this, but there are too many vested interests to allow that to happen.

donkey balls

i used to work for an us airline and i believe he was set up take a trip over to pprune.com its a website for pilots and the majority of them think he is innocent.

sure we can allways trust the CIA who helped in the investigation after all there was WMD found in IRAQ not.

since his release the only people condeming it is the yanks i have not heard of one person from lockabie speak out with exceptions to Dr Jim Swire who lost his daughter who also thinks the libyan is innocent

RiverWilde

Where is the compassion ... guilty or not the man is dying ... it is only right that he should be able to spend his remaining time with his family.

Riv

Gruffalo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sorry, I forgot to agree uncritically with your perspective on the matter. Please forgive me.

Can you make a post without raving?

I will give you a little hint:

The way debate works is that you respond to what the other person said. Now you have made 2 comments in a row, to me, which have no relevance to what I actually said. Try responding to what people say, not what you wish they had said.

prinz

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

One of the pre-requisites for the compassionate release was for Mergrahi to drop his appeal.
Seem strange?

No. AFAIK that is standard practice in any case. No point appealing something when you're already released tbh. As such the Scots were merely following as they said due process. Anything strange..er no.

A Dub in Glasgo

prinz wrote: »

No. AFAIK that is standard practice in any case. No point appealing something when you're already released tbh. As such the Scots were merely following as they said due process. Anything strange..er no.

That is not the case. Compassionate release under Scots law does not insist on dropping any legal challenge to the conviction.

Transferring prisoners to Libya, as drawn up by the UK Governement, does insist that all legal challenges are dropped. The Scottish Government pointedly refused to send Megrahi to Libya under the transfer arrangement negotiated over their heads by Blair.

Gruffalo

prinz wrote: »

No. AFAIK that is standard practice in any case. No point appealing something when you're already released tbh. As such the Scots were merely following as they said due process. Anything strange..er no.

Well if it is standard practice, I would be delighted if you could provide a link or two to other cases where this has happened.

dresden8

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

One of the pre-requisites for the compassionate release was for Mergrahi to drop his appeal.

Seem strange?

Not really. The thinking behind it probably is that to receive mercy one has to admit ones guilt. Or something like that.

But still, the whole thing stinks.

Politics is dirty but international politics is a sewer.

A Dub in Glasgo

dresden8 wrote: »

Not really. The thinking behind it probably is that to receive mercy one has to admit ones guilt. Or something like that.

Scots law is clear on this, it is either compassionate leave or it is not. Innocence or guilt does not come into it.

What does come into it is the 'let us not open that Pandora's box'

dresden8

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scots law is clear on this, it is either compassionate leave or it is not. Innocence or guilt does not come into it.

What does come into it is the 'let us not open that Pandora's box'

I disagree with your first statement, they weren't going to let him out while he was appealing his innocence and saying they got it wrong.

The Brits probably thought he would fnck off quietly. Colonel Gadaffi only pretends at playing the rules, remember the soles of his shoes incident with Blair, the grinning evil one?

Couldn't agree with you more on your second statement.

prinz

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is not the case. Compassionate release under Scots law does not insist on dropping any legal challenge to the conviction.

Apologies, quite correct it is the PTA which was conditional, but not the compassionate release. However the motion by his legal team to withdraw his appeals came a week before the decision was made by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, at which time both applications were still on the table, i.e. transfer to Libya under the PTA and on compassionate grounds. Why would his legal team withdraw his appeal when the decision of a transfer or release was still to be made... in the end he needn't have, he either jumped the gun and got it wrong, or as I assume you believe it was some sort of trade off, i.e. drop your appeal and we'll let you go. I doubt it. Neither the Scots nor Downing Street need that kind of negative attention tbh.IMO his dropping of the apeal was in line with Libya's acknowledgement of involvement and a step towards the situation we have now. I think everyone can agree al-Megrahi was took the rap in the name of everyone involved, regardless of his personal involvement. Do I think it was him alone; no. Do I think he was completely innocent; absolutely not. Do I think this is all part of some international game of chess that no one will unravel, probably. But it goes much further than London and Libya.

A Dub in Glasgo

prinz wrote: »

Why would his legal team withdraw his appeal when the decision of a transfer or release was still to be made... in the end he needn't have, he either jumped the gun and got it wrong.

Because he was told that the only chance of him going to Libya to live out his last few months was by dropping his appeal. It has been a well known secret in Scotland for weeks now.

A Dub in Glasgo

By the way, you would think that all those foaming at the mouth to decry this decision would like to know who was really behind the bombing? Apparantly not, they are only interested in the scapegoat

irish_bob

RiverWilde wrote: »

Where is the compassion ... guilty or not the man is dying ... it is only right that he should be able to spend his remaining time with his family.

Riv

one of the few things that every single human being on this earth have in common is that they will die , millions of people in the uk are dieing , most of them didnt commit mass murder , only a wooly headed liberal would play the compasionate card on this one , if he is innocent , its a travesty of justice that he was ever imprisoned but the point being is that he hasnt been released because he was found innocent , therefore , i find it disgusting and contemptous towards the familys of the victims

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

By the way, you would think that all those foaming at the mouth to decry this decision would like to know who was really behind the bombing? Apparantly not, they are only interested in the scapegoat

Would I love to know who else was involved?

Absolutely.

I'm neither foaming at the mouth nor decrying the decision, mind. I'm just questioning the certainty that he's innocent. Sure, he might be innocent. But so might everyone else in jail in the UK, Ireland or anywhere else in the world.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm just questioning the certainty that he's innocent. Sure, he might be innocent. But so might everyone else in jail in the UK, Ireland or anywhere else in the world.

There are no certainties in life (apart from death). Some things are more likely than others. Have a look at the evidence and the reports of the trial and the observers and come back and tell us what you think. This hiding behind 'due process' just ensures the status quo.

Mr.Micro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There are no certainties in life (apart from death). Some things are more likely than others. Have a look at the evidence and the reports of the trial and the observers and come back and tell us what you think. This hiding behind 'due process' just ensures the status quo.

There was more than this guy involved IMO. At the time he was seen by many observers as the fall guy or at least someone who was prepared to take the blame ( through coercion or idealism or whatever) for the sake of Libya. I have a suspicion that the authorities knew this and perhaps that is the reasoning he was released and having terminal cancer. It was also mooted this week that the reason was also for a new trade deal between Libya and the UK. It was done for the IRA so why not in this case. The dead or victims sadly do not count when it comes to money or trade deals.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Have a look at the evidence and the reports of the trial and the observers and come back and tell us what you think.

I honestly don't have time. I don't doubt that there is evidence that could be interpreted as pointing to his innocence; just as there is evidence that could be interpreted as indicating that the US government was behind 9/11.

If there was a miscarriage of justice, or there's new evidence to establish his innocence, the place to introduce that is at appeal.

If the Birmingham Six had been let out on compassionate grounds, but still had murder convictions over their heads, would that be a satisfactory outcome?

There's a wealth of This hiding behind 'due process' just ensures the status quo.

Do you have an issue with due process as a general principle, or just when it suits you?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly don't have time.

You have made about 9 or 10 contributions to this thread and the jist of it is 'he was convicted by a court therefore....'. By your own admision, you are ignorant of the case and the possibility of there being a miscarraige of justice.

If there was a miscarriage of justice, or there's new evidence to establish his innocence, the place to introduce that is at appeal.

Now that Mergrahi has chosen to die at home in Libya over the appeal, will you agree that there should be a public inquiry into the case?

If the Birmingham Six had been let out on compassionate grounds, but still had murder convictions over their heads, would that be a satisfactory outcome?

Absolutely not although I am sure the Birmingham 6 would have chosen to be allowed compassionate release for their impending death over clearing their name. The problem arises when they are felt compelled to drop their appeal in order that they avail of the compassionate release and the case then gets buried.

Do you have an issue with due process as a general principle, or just when it suits you?

Nope, I just don't wait for due process before forming an opinion. That opinion can change over the course of the due process. I think it is healthy for democracy that people form opinions that challenge certain things eg possible miscarriage of justice.