Should the Lockerbie Bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, have been freed on compassionate grounds?

since he will be dead in 3 months he has effectively served his life sentence anyway.
furthermore, iirc, his guilt was not 100% certain, even some of the relatives of the victims doubted his guilt.

Yes. This compassion is entirely appropriate. It is what makes us better than terrorists.

I am not ok with it for compassionate reasons, but I am ok with it. As long as he is oing to die in a few months let Scotland save some money.

I am with Zuma.
And ragingloli.

Today it was announced that Gordon Brown was in it too (supposedly), because he didn’t want AL Megrahi to die on British soil.

Forgiven, yes. But I still wouldn’t grant him no freedom. I think this desease he got wasn’t just a coincidnce, I highly believe all works for higher purpose, meaning you reap what you sow.

Where do you draw the line? Should pedophiles be let out to spend the last few weeks of their lives free?

@missingbite
thank you for your mixture of slippery-slope + appeal-to-emotion fallacy

@missingbite – I think these decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, meaning it’s unlikely Megrahi’s case will set a precedent. However, I think the real issue is in what defines compassion given the gravity of the crime committed. Megrahi showed no remorse, though as @ragingloli said, his guilt was doubted by many and he insists he is an innocent man.

I think I read that Megrahi promised to provide all necessary evidence to prove his innocence before he died, though the severity of his illness will probably hamper this. I hear he has moved into a hospice indefinitely.

@missingbite Are you saying that there are certain categories of subhumans that are not deserving of human compassion? What we are talking about here is letting him go home to die.

And so what if it does set a precedent? What is wrong with setting a precedent for compassion?

Good for them. Everyone deserved compassion.

@polos
he already had an appeal running to prove his innocense. he sacrificed a possible future proof of his innocense for the 3 months in freedom.

@ragingloli and @polos – I never said it wasn’t a case by case basis. I simply asked two additional questions. A slippery-slope would have been if I said ” If you let him out, next thing you know they will be letting pedophiles out.” An appeal-to-emotion would have been if I said “If you let him out, think of the victims.” I simply asked where you draw the line on things that are very subjective.
@Zuma I can have compassion for for someone and still not think they need to be set free to go home to die. I am glad you seem to have that much compassion for everyone. I simply don’t.

@missingbite
it was an appeal to emotion because child molesting (not pedophilia, because most pedophiles are not child molesters and many if not most child molesters are not pedophiles and simply saw the child as an easy target.) is an extremely emotionally laden topic.
it was a slippery slope fallacy because of your “where do you draw the line”, suggesting that child molesters are somehow worse than mass murderers (which is in itself a ludicrous claim)

@missingbite And what of his victims? Are they made better by the sadistic enjoyment of his suffering? Does justice demand he die undignified death?

Sure, his victims died horribly, but isn’t doing the same to him a form of complicity in, even endorsement of, the very sort of violence we condemn as wrong?

@Zuma That would be up to his victims. I can’t speculate on what they may or may not feel. Nor would I try. In response to your asking me if i thought of some people as subhumans without deserving human compassion, I simply said I could have compassion for someone and not let them out of jail.
@ragingloli Sorry if my example struck a cord, it wasn’t intentional. I could have asked, Do we let Bernie Madoff out of jail, he (according to rumor) is terminal. My original response was my way of saying I think it was a bad decision to let Megrahi out because he is terminal.

I have heard that there is a deal to being a Libyan Oil Company into Britain, and that is rumored to have been a part of the deal.

Well, there’s compassion, and then there’s national interest. Khadaffi is making a hero out of this guy, and he is making it clear that he doesn’t give a shit about the values of the Western world. This makes him a hero to some, and it probably serves to recruit more people who want to attack the US.

Now, could the Scots have foreseen this? Did they have latitude in the decision to let this terrorist go? Could it be a public relations coup for the Scots—showing how compassionate they are?

This is about the symbolism of foreign affairs, and it’s hard to interpret how it will affect peace and attitudes of people in various nations. It seems to me that if they had left it alone, the guy would have died, and no one would have known any better. But they let him go, and now the West looks foolish. I don’t see how this could be good for the interests of Western nations. No way that compassion is going to make up for the egg in the face.

So, although I’m in favor of compassion, generally, I’m not sure there should be compassion for people who murder several hundred others, nor do I think that terrorists should be allowed to make heroes of these people. He should have stayed in prison.

He was granted what he took away from everyone on that plane.
A chance to die at home.
A chance to say goodbye to loved ones.
A funeral with a casket he will be in.

The sentence was life. They should have held true.

@filmfann
allegedly took away

Convicted.
When they had the parade for him in Libya, did he ask them to stop, since he didn’t do it?

so you say that all convicts are guilty, that there are no innocents in prison?

I am saying we don’t need to say Alleged when he was convicted.
I am convinced he did it.
Would it matter to you if he did?

@polos welcome to fluther. Lurve.

I am saying we have to say alleged if his guilt is in question. Which it is.
I am not convinced of his guilt.
Neither are some of the victim’s relatives and some legal experts.
It matters because a possibly innocent man has been wrongly robbed of many years of his life.

Would it matter to you that he was released early if he did it?

see the first line of my first response

I think this case was fake. The pictures of him in the jail hospital show him at death’s door, but when he got off the plane in Libya, he was walking and looked as healthy as any one. He might have terminal cancer, but in my opinion, the oil deal was the reason he was freed, and I don’t agree with that choice.

@ragingloli So even if he did it, you support his early release.
I don’t. Even if he is innocent, it sends the wrong message.

On the face of it, I think the Scottish courts were within their rights to release the man on compassionate grounds. He is old and ill, and probably will not last out the year.

At the same time, Susan Atkins stays in jail, though she is dying of brain cancer.
Shall we release her? She just killed 7 or 8 people.

yes, it was a proper decision. however, i do not condone his actions. and i definitely do not condone the lybian governments welcoming of the bomber.

@filmfann Why not release Susan Atkins to go home to die after 40 years in prison? Is compassion reserved only for “good” people?

she only killed two people, under the influence of Charles Manson and, no doubt, under a whole lot of drugs

When the dust clears, we are going to find there was a diplomatic and/or economic component behind this. Al Jazeera is already reporting new trade deals today between Libya and the EU. It probably means that Gadaffi will continue to produce more oil while other OPEC members are cutting production to push prices higher during recovery.

Everybody wins. EU countries will have a smoother recovery, Gadaffi will rake in the dough and is the hero of the Arab world by getting Megrahi freed and Megrahi will have a miraculous recovery.

It isn’t compassion that makes the world go ‘round.

Susan Atkins has nothing to do with this. She is a prisoner in the US, we have much stricter laws on “compassionate release”. scottland allows terminally ill patients to go home to die. our law is less lenient and her offense took place before we granted any compassionate release, so she is not eligible for a compassionate release .

http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_046.pdf

@alive I don’t see anything in the post you cite that indicates that our laws in the US regarding compassionate release are less lenient than Scotland.

Anyway, Atkins is a prisoner of the State of California, not the Federal government, and State law does allow terminally ill prisoners to go home to die. In fact, I have been invited to attend a hearing on just such a case tomorrow. Unfortunately, law or not we don’t seem to have too much compassion here in California, since almost no one gets released. We have people in comas being guarded round the clock, at a staggering cost. Its ridiculous.

The English government tightened the strings on Scottish government , Brown waged a deal and he tugged the strings that made him go . Will a report show this , NO , they did it all at face to face meetings so no paper trail linked to England . Let Scotland take the flak for Brown and his ways Shame to know he is Scottish

Atkins applies. She was involved with the death of at least 8 people. She is dieing of brain cancer. The fact that she was under Manson’s influence doesn’t matter. Shall we say Osama bin Laden was under the influence of Mohammad, or Satan, or the Taliban, and excuse him?
Atkins compassion towards her victims is legend, of course. They wanted to cut the unborn baby out of it’s mother. That’s compassion!
A sentence should be carried out. I can’t abide early release.

That would be a “no” from me. A life sentence should be just that. To us, it may seem that we’re showing the terrorists we’re better than they are. They would just see it as weakness. The people who died on that flight were shown no compassion.

GA @Zuma I agree 100%.

Well no because if he was well enough to walk up the stairs un aided to his plane without any difficulty then he was clearly not at deaths door. My doctor friends see people with similar cancers in fa worse conditions where it might have been appropriate.

My logic (even though I’m not American) says no, because there is a punishment that goes with every crime, and since he was found guilty, there’s no reason why he should be released (when someone else in the same position would not).

But if there really is such a law, then the Scottish did the right thing. After all, the guy’s going to die anyway. And I guess the logic behind the Scottish decision is that our society should be more forgiving, regardless of what the accused has done.

For me, the most interesting part of this whole story though, was his reception. We Westerners can look in shocked horror as those stupid muslims welcome this evil terrorist as a national hero, but what if they’re right and we’re wrong? And how can we convict someone as a criminal and at the same time so many other people disagree? Their reasons for this welcome are far more important than the legalistic excuses for his release.

@Zuma sorry, the link i posted was just meant to reference the “date of offense”, showing that even if we did let people out on compassionate grounds, she would not be eligible because her murders took place before this law was in place, and it was not retroactive.

anyways, i was also reading the california state law on compassionate release and it seems under our law that she does not have a strong argument for release (obviously i am not the only one who thinks thins because she has been denied 13 times – right? and denied again just a few days ago). obviously any law is up for interpretation, but one thing that is held in high regard in our legal system is the testimony from the victim and/or victim’s family. the family has always requested atkins petition be denied.
http://www.geocities.com/three_strikes_legal/compassionate_release_law.html

as for my “leniency” comment i was just going off the wiki description that scottland gets a few requests per year for compassionate and grants most of them. so the lockerbie bomber getting his petition granted is actually not that unusual, but it was in the news because of the high profile of his crime

Jack straw admitted oil deal played a part in release of the bomber dude , what happened to the English government not having anything to do with it ???

Yeah I also heard what Sandy just said today. That puts the whole thing into a completely different perspective. Though of course Jack Straw is the UK foreign minister, whereas this case was handled by the Scottish legal authorities (for the Americans here, it’s something like a convict being released from a State prison with no FBI or government intervention).

@Jack79 , What if we’re wrong and they’re right? I’m trying to think of some moral frame of reference where blowing up civilian aircraft with children aboard is the right thing to do. But I can’t.

I hear things from the far left from time to time that say these people are acting out against their oppressors in the only way that they can. They can’t take on our military in a straight-up fight, so they murder civilians as a way of getting back at us for how we’ve exploited them.

I don’t buy it for a minute. The people who plan airplane bombings only want power in their part of the world. They are every bit as corrupt as they accuse us of being.

@IchtheosaurusRex An explanation is not an excuse. It is important to know the why if you want to stop terrorism. That doesn’t mean that because a terrorist thinks he has a reason that he be excused from the consequences of his actions. I have a fairly liberal viewpoint but I have little sympathy for “compassion” just because a criminal has cancer. I wouldn’t show him compassion to attend his child’s funeral or any other reason. As I have stated the compassion issue is just a smokescreen anyway. BTW ⅔ of cancer patients survive. Somebody powerful wanted something and Megrahi was just the chip they played.

@IchtheosaurusRex I’m not saying they are right, I’m saying it is interesting that they welcomed him as a hero. I’m sure there are people on the other side who are just as sure that the truth is the opposite of what you say. And will have plenty of dead children to prove it.

And no, I don’t believe he should be released unless they found out he was innocent and they had got the wrong man. This “humanitarian reasons” release doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, there should be humane conditions in jail, and people should get the best medical care available, whether in or out of jail. But being set free because you got sick makes no sense, in the same way that it would make no sense to put him back in jail if he got better.

@galileogirl , I’m convinced that the “why” is just what I said it was: corrupt men lusting for power. I’m sure that your average 19-year-old suicide bomber believes there’s another reason, but the young are easily misled.

@Jack79 , I wasn’t suggesting that you were apologizing for them. I do wonder about the motivations of the cheering crowds. What have they been told, and who is telling it to them?

Well I think the crowds were being sincere (ie none of that Cold War staged cheering that we know about). They have been told that this man fought in the war against American Imperialism, that he bravely attacked a valid target, putting himself in danger, and that he was wrongly persecuted by the Infidels for fighting this Holy War. I am sure the local media focused more on his own life, with possible mistreatment in jail or during his trial, and certainly not on the victims or their families, who were simply discarded as “enemy targets”. The “who” is also quite obvious, it’s the same people who are telling us the opposite: media, politicians (through the media) and other spokespeople (also through the media).
It is also interesting that in an opposite case, Peter Arnett was accused on focusing too much on the human victims of the first Gulf War, instead of hailing the heroic efforts of the US bombers. So not only do media play the propaganda game, but we as the public attack them when they don’t. I imagine that if some Libyan journalist (and remember that Libya is not half as democratic as the US) dared mention that there were children on that plane, they’d not just get flacked like Arnett, they’d probably be fired (if not actually physically attacked).

@IchtheosaurusRex I wasn’t thinking about the why of the planners, but the why of why suicide and murder is preferable to life to young people who often have received a good education. Why they turn from a reality they have experienced to some ideal that wouldn’t stand up to logic.

I was watching a documentary about that last night, about a young Yemeni in Sheffield. Everyone said what a wonderful and friendly person he was, and how he was making friends and becoming incorporated in society. He was not an outcast, or violent, a weirdo, a loner or anything like that. Then he went to Iraq and everything changed, and he never came back. He was shot dead by US soldiers for trying to blow up a checkpoint (his family deny he had anything to do with it, but it seems he had explosives on him. And even if he was innocent and shot accidentally, most others aren’t).

What surprised me was that the logic behind it was not what I expected. And it had nothing to do with justice and fairness, or even revenge. It was basically “Infidels have invaded Muslim lands. All infidels must die”. Didn’t matter whether it was Americans or British, whether they had invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, whether they had even killed muslims, or whether they were soldiers or civilians. It reminded me of Bender’s “Kill all Humans” in Futurama. And had nothing to do with whether the person speaking was young or old, educated, poor, or good-looking.

Compassionate grounds for a murderous terrorist is as oxymoronic as military intelligence seems to be of late. Put yourself in the shoes of the victims families when they saw his smiling face plastered on the all the front pages and evening news, getting a hero’s welcome from Kaddafi.

And what a morale boost to the Bin Ladens of this world.

Any way you spin it: dumb, inconsiderate and pathetic move.

@Zen
some of the victim’s families supported the release…

@ragingloli So? There are always a few bleeding hearts. I don’t judge them for a second, mind you, because some people forgive for different reasons, and in different ways. It takes far more courage to forgive than to hate, in my book. Notwithstanding, the majority probably feel the way I do. If you knew me a little, you might know that my opinion on the subject is somewhat loaded and personal. But to each his own.