Lockerbie Bomber released

[Duke of Gloucester]

To be honest, I think the most interesting thing here is the constitutional issue. Namely, that the Scottish Executive took a decision with massive foreign policy implications without having any responsibility for UK foreign policy. That the Scottish Executive tried to foist the blame off on Westminster is both pathetic and laughable. On the one hand, under the Devolution agreement Westminster has no responsiblity for Scottish prisoners, and the SNP would have raised merry hell, had they intervened. On the other hand, this is clearly not a decision that Scotland alone should have taken when it affects the whole of the UK.

Fault in Devolution here.

Surely constitutionally this is quite right, isn't it? The fact that a Scottish legal decision is isolated from political and diplomatic interference would be correct according to constitutional theory. Judicial decisions should be taken according to law and justice. Trade and realpolitik should not enter into these decisions. Of course they often do, but you can't criticise the constitution if it prevents this.

In any case the UK foreign office have played their hand well. They were worried about a re-trial and wanting to promote trade. They have encouraged the Scottish justice office just enough without putting their backs up and played on Kenny McAskill's doubts on the safety of the conviction and manouvered him in to making an unpopular (domestically and internationally) decision.

It is a shame that neither McAskill nor the FO gave any thought to the victims' families. This is par for the course for the foreign office but KM ought to have known better.

Strength of devolution (if you are English). England benefits and Scotland gets pariah status.

[HopAlongBunny]

With the possibility that the validity of the trial/conviction may be challenged, this move makes perfect sense.

To any question or demand for info standard reply will be:

Neither the Crown, nor its agents, have any further interest in the matter. Case closed.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have some sympathy for the American commentator (David Frum?) who noted that this release is a setback for those of us who believe the rule of law should be applied to deal with terrorism.

Significant penalties for such acts should be imposed and observed for the full term. Megrahi should not have been released, even for compassionate reasons.

However, the rule of law also demands that the appeal should be held quickly and thoroughly, however embarrassing to vested interests. The original trial had flawed evidence, and the verdict was delivered more on the balance of probability than beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, appeals should be entertained properly so that if he is innocent, it is clearly proven. Until that time, he is a convicted criminal, and should stay in jail until he dies.

The law should be blind to political machinations too. Compassionate grounds for release should not apply to capital crimes. However, we love our double standards rather too much.

Mind you, I think Ronnie Biggs should have died in prison too, and this fellow recently in the news. I can't imagine how hurt the victims' families would be if the latter chap got his life sentence for mass murder commuted to three years' house arrest.

[Kralizec]

I take it that now he's been released anyway, there's no reason at all to look into what happened precisely before and during the trial

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have some sympathy for the American commentator (David Frum?) who noted that this release is a setback for those of us who believe the rule of law should be applied to deal with terrorism.

Significant penalties for such acts should be imposed and observed for the full term. Megrahi should not have been released, even for compassionate reasons.

However, the rule of law also demands that the appeal should be held quickly and thoroughly, however embarrassing to vested interests. The original trial had flawed evidence, and the verdict was delivered more on the balance of probability than beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, appeals should be entertained properly so that if he is innocent, it is clearly proven. Until that time, he is a convicted criminal, and should stay in jail until he dies....

I think the problem with the approach of handling it as a legal issue is nicely embodied in this example. It is going to be VERY difficult to get admissable evidence that cannot be made suspect by a good defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt favors the defense -- as it should -- but convictions will be difficult and rare (especially of those engaged in cospiracy to plan/support acts of terror).

[Kralizec]

Banquo, I'm sure you know about the Guildford Four. Some might not...

One of the convicted died a few months before their conviction was squashed, after his request to be released on compassionate grounds was denied. By that time the police, and presumably the prosecution was well aware that most of evidence they had was either tainted or fabricated. To top it, by then the true culprit had already confessed his guilt.
Maybe this MacAskill bloke knows something that we don't.

I have a bachelor in law so I probably should agree with the notion that convicts should be treated as convicts as long as they're not acquitted, but denying compassionate release under such circumstances is absurd (IMO).

[Don Corleone]

This is one of those times I have to resist the rush to judgment and freely admit I don't know enough about the facts of the case to form an opinion on the merits against the convicted and will have to keep quiet on the matter.

However, I will say that if this was done either 1) on humanitarian grounds or 2) to keep an appeal from exposing poor or possibly even unethical case presentation by the prosecutors, the prosecutors or the Scottish officials ought to finish the guy's term for him.

The only possible reason I can see for letting a mass murderer out of jail early is credible evidence of his innocence. Cases like this make it all the harder to sway people away from the death penalty.

[Kralizec]

2) to keep an appeal from exposing poor or possibly even unethical case presentation by the prosecutors, the prosecutors or the Scottish officials ought to finish the guy's term for him.

He's expected to die within 3 months, so this is not very likely.

The only possible reason I can see for letting a mass murderer out of jail early is credible evidence of his innocence.

A subtle point, but I assume you mean if it turns out there was never credible evidence of his guilt in the first place?
I'm not sure I agree.

[econ21]

Cases like this make it all the harder to sway people away from the death penalty.

Reading the article Idaho linked to gave me the opposite conclusion - that cases like this make the death penalty look suspect even for the most heinous crimes (like this) because establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is so hard. Even when a jury does reach such a verdict, the conviction may well later be proven unsound.

The only possible reason I can see for letting a mass murderer out of jail early is credible evidence of his innocence.

On the issue of letting dying people out of jail on compassionate grounds, I confess I had never heard of the idea until it was applied recently to the UK train robber, Ronnie Biggs. I guess this goes to the issue of what is the purpose of punishment. If one takes a purely utilitarian point of view (punishment is to prevent, deterr or rehabilitate), then the case for compassionate release does sound strong. The man is no longer a threat and cannot be rehabilitated, so that leaves only deterrence. But I can't see terrorists, still less a terrorist state, being influenced one way or another by what happens to terminally ill prisoners. However, if one sees punishment as partly retribution, then one would agree with the Don. I used to have a purely utilitarian view of punishment, but this case makes me question that. Some crimes are just too heinous to show compassion. Biggs's release, I could swallow - he was a small time villain - but this crime is about as bad as it gets.

Like almost everyone except the prisoner and the politicians, I would much prefer this to have gone to appeal.

[Incongruous]

Okay, now I get it....

"Default" means default view that the governments of the US and UK are a bunch of vicious, self-serving ******** with no redeeming value. Must save time on the typing.....

Okay!

Hmm, hae you been keeping up with history Seamus? Indeed the past three years are a good example of why not to beieve anything the government says.

Oh and my comment still stands, the consternation is laughable, whipped up by the corporate media for those who run Democracy inc.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo, I'm sure you know about the Guildford Four. Some might not...

One of the convicted died a few months before their conviction was squashed, after his request to be released on compassionate grounds was denied. By that time the police, and presumably the prosecution was well aware that most of evidence they had was either tainted or fabricated. To top it, by then the true culprit had already confessed his guilt.
Maybe this MacAskill bloke knows something that we don't.

I have a bachelor in law so I probably should agree with the notion that convicts should be treated as convicts as long as they're not acquitted, but denying compassionate release under such circumstances is absurd (IMO).

I accept your point, though my view would be that the appeals process should be much quicker. In terrorism cases, the political considerations often interfere with the judicial timing.

The Guildford Four is a good example: confessions obtained by torture and political opposition to holding an early, comprehensive appeal because of the embarrassment that would ensue. If I recall correctly, there was some pressure to apply the death penalty (there were still a couple of crimes where capital punishment applied in the UK at the time) which of course, would have been as politically expedient as in the Megrahi case.

I don't think denial of compassionate release is absurd at all. As I have noted before, for criminals that are going to be released after sentence, a rehabilitation of high standard is necessary to protect and enhance the society taking them back. For capital crimes, rather than the death penalty which is so flawed and ethically wrong, imprisonment for life should mean just that, ideally with hard labour, until buried in a prison plot and forgotten. No compassion shown to the victim, thus none to the perpetrator.

[Slyspy]

I don't think denial of compassionate release is absurd at all. As I have noted before, for criminals that are going to be released after sentence, a rehabilitation of high standard is necessary to protect and enhance the society taking them back. For capital crimes, rather than the death penalty which is so flawed and ethically wrong, imprisonment for life should mean just that, ideally with hard labour, until buried in a prison plot and forgotten. No compassion shown to the victim, thus none to the perpetrator.

Which begs the question why give prisoners the right to appeal, or even why not have the death penalty? No compassion etc etc

[KukriKhan]

Mind you, I think Ronnie Biggs should have died in prison too, and this fellow recently in the news. I can't imagine how hurt the victims' families would be if the latter chap got his life sentence for mass murder commuted to three years' house arrest.

I must have been living under a rock; I totally missed the LT Calley story. Thanks for the link.

Calley should still be breaking rocks in Leavenworth, alongside his chain of command, and Platoon Sgt. In my personal opinion.

[Furunculus]

i doubt we'll ever know the truth of whether he was responsible or merely a convenient set-up, however the yanks appear to be p*ssed which begs two questions:

1) how much damage will the affair do to US trade/tourism with Scotland?
2) how much damage will the affair do to US/UK intelligence cooperation?

[Tribesman]

2) how much damage will the affair do to US/UK intelligence cooperation?

Since at best the intelligence supplied in this case could be described as very dubious and the intelligence cooperation over Iraq consisted of outright fabrications does it really matter.

[Furunculus]

yes, because by all accounts the UK benefits enormously from access to US intelligence, something that the vast majority of nations never engage in as a routine and comprehensive activity, because it requires a significant level of trust.

[Tribesman]

yes, because by all accounts the UK benefits enormously from access to US intelligence, something that the vast majority of nations never engage in as a routine and comprehensive activity, because it requires a significant level of trust.

A significant level of trust?
Do you trust unreliable information?

[Furunculus]

you can sit here, citing individual examples of poor information as evidence that the intelligence relationship is valueless and at the same time have zero comprehension of the torrent of information that flows between the UK and the US............... amazing.

i cannot quantify that flow either, but i trust that it is significant from what i have understood. if you have come to a different conclusion good for you, but i disagree.

[Incongruous]

you can sit here, citing individual examples of poor information as evidence that the intelligence relationship is valueless and at the same time have zero comprehension of the torrent of information that flows between the UK and the US............... amazing.

i cannot quantify that flow either, but i trust that it is significant from what i have understood. if you have come to a different conclusion good for you, but i disagree.

Awsome, you can sit their Tribe's stating facts, but the bollocks of the matter is, I have to disagree with them for no logical reason other than it can't be true.

[Furunculus]

do you believe that we get access to us intelligence that we would not otherwise have access to?

if yes, would you like to put a price tag on the value of that intelligence if we had to get it ourselves?

stop talking nonsense.

[Louis VI the Fat]

- As with the death penalty, I waver between lust for revenge, and the wish for an element of compassion in our legal systems. I don't feel very strongly either towards releasing terminally ill prisoners or liflong sentences.

- I was very angry at the hero's welcome. Then again, when those two Norwegian terrorists have been bought free from the Congo, I think they will receive a hero's welcome in Oslo just like this terrorist received in Tripoli.

It's all so shady. We'll never know. Somewhere in various CIA/MI6/Mossad/Lybian/Iranian/Palestinian/Lizard Folk offices someone is no doubt busy with the shredder.

Shady indeed.

For those interested, and for a broader perspective, this case reminds me a bit of the Bulgarian nurses mystery. They were freed from Libya by Cecilia Sarkozy. After which it emerged that an arms deal with Libya was negotiated shortly after. The details are still not cleared up. Shady, shady.
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=83826

On a more lighthearted note, when Italy struck a deal with Libya, in return Saadi Gaddafi - son of - got to play a few games in the Italian Football League. He is also the captain of the Libyan national football team, the chairman of the Libyan Football Association, and a worse player than me.

Aah..petty dictatorships, don't you just love 'em? Maybe the Americans are right, and bombs are an excellent substitute for haute diplomacy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Disgusting, isn't it?

[Tribesman]

Disgusting, isn't it?

Really?

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom”

Is that the same government that said it was in the national interest to suppress the evidence and block the legal appeal?
Could it be that they kept an innocent person in jail to use as a bargaining chip for a business deal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Really?

Not really, no, just another lesson in international relations.

Is that the same government that said it was in the national interest to suppress the evidence and block the legal appeal?
Could it be that they kept an innocent person in jail to use as a bargaining chip for a business deal.

Could be.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Gadaffi's other son has received a resident permit in the UK. He'll be moving there soon. Does this mean we'll see him play for West Ham anytime soon?

SAIF GADAFFI, the son of the Libyan ruler, is moving his burgeoning media empire to London as he seeks to capitalise on blossoming trade ties with Britain.

Gadaffi, who escorted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the freed Lockerbie bomber, from Scotland to Tripoli, has bought a £10m home in Hampstead, north London.

Staff at Gadaffi’s television news company, Al Mutawassit, are moving to the UK — with the first broadcast planned this week — and their boss is expected to follow. Ultimately, it aims to rival Al-Jazeera, the leading Arab news channel, with the launch of a website and newspaper.

Whitehall sources confirmed that Gadaffi, 37, had been granted a UK visitor’s visa that allows him to stay in Britain for up to six months.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6814973.ece


Edit: This just in! Tottenham have bought him! They were looking for players to improve their squad.

[InsaneApache]

Disgusting, isn't it?

Not really. A couple of hundred dead yanks and brits for sqillions of barrels of oil sounds like a bargain. Another winner from our Great Leader.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Perhaps a few more cruise missiles down the Colonel's chimney might yield a more accurate version of the incident.

[KukriKhan]

Perhaps a few more cruise missiles down the Colonel's chimney might yield a more accurate version of the incident.

Heh. Or make him stay in a Manhatten hotel vs. pitching his tent in New Jersey when he comes here soon. That'll show 'im.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Heh. Or make him stay in a Manhatten hotel vs. pitching his tent in New Jersey when he comes here soon. That'll show 'im.

Actually, I believe setting up the tent in Thorden Park near Syracuse University might be a better spot.