[QRhnNSg9]

Lofter. Like I said I couldn't read your tone. I've been on the receiving ending of your sarcasm before and I couldn't tell if you were being genuine or not. Therefore I apologise for my curt response.

As for your question, there are separate legal systems for Scotland and England. Justice, ie law, is completely devolved power so all legal matters are handled by the Scottish parliament with no input from the UK government. I'm can't think of an example but I'm sure there are some caveats to that.

[bomondus]

Your reply is appreciated. Scorn and sarcasm can be needed weapons when the world goes awry.

Its helps the discussion if you are mature in your responses.

Excuse my distaste and the need to express it. Logic escapes me in this instance. To demand a "mature response' in this moment seems to be a call for an unwillngness of feeling and an analytic view of a sickening turn of events.

Situation: Mass murderer given clemency; Political big wigs do deals over dead bodies.

How much maturity is displayed by that? And how much cold-eyed logic should meet such a display?

And finally:

How maturely will folks respond if this fine Libyan fellow, convicted of the murders of 270 souls but now welcomed back home in Libya as a conquering hero (despite Gordon Brown's personal correspndence to his "Dear Muammar" where he pleads with the co-conspirator Gaddaffi that "when we met [there] I stressed that, should the Scottish executive decide that Megrahi can return to Libya, this should be a purely private family occasion" rather than a public celebration"), isn't dead and buried within three months, as surmised by the Scottish Authority in Charge?

Do the Scots then take him back?

[glopomcyte]

At the moment I am stuck between the fact that compassionate release is a standard part of Scots law and the fact that this man's crime is sickening. It doesn't help that there are rumours of his innocence and of under handed business deals. I'm deeply embarrassed by the scenes in Tripoli.

[bQXHsKzS]

... rumours of his innocence ...

Where did that come from?

Why did Gadaffi negotiate to allow Megrahi's incarceration and subsequent trial in a neutral country? Which resulted in his conviction of the murders of 270 persons and a sentence of Life Imprisonment. Did Muammar give up his faithful subject simply to get the $4M reward? Or maybe it was the hope that Gaddaffi, now compliant to the wishes of the west, could bring his country out of the dark ages into which he had (mis)guided it? Or maybe Megrahi is just Muammar's dupe? Next thing we know we'll be re-arguing every splinter group's claims of responsibility.

But again there are rumours. So, by all means, let us now nullify the ruling of the courts (even though the appeals process was played out with no good results for Megrahi).

Compassion is a lovely sentiment and a golden rule by which one should live. But in this instance it is totally misplaced. It means nothing unless put into context.

Or perhaps I'm utterly wrong and Pan Am 103 merely fell from the sky on it's own accord.

In a world where nothing matters, nothing does.

[fluoxet]

I remember reading in most articles before his release and some since that there are people who believe he had nothing to do with it. Remember he was also appealing against his conviction. Like I said though I don't really know much about the details of his case.

I agree compassion is extremely important in life. It's difficult though when something so despicable has happened. I've been thinking to myself about compassion and what it means. The way I see it you have to show compassion to bad people as well as good, or its an empty sentiment. This doesn't stop my conflicting feelings however.

[defenderfors]

This creep was one of several who cooly packed bombs into a portable radio in order to compassionately kill off several hundred Westerners all at once.
It seems that their intended victim's government had retaliated against Libia for some previous murders, and Libia was having none of that, so someone had to die.
Megrahi and a few other indicited co-conspiraters decided, on orders from Moomar, that blowing up a jumbo full of American-bound passengers would be kind of a cool thing to do-- so that's what they did.
Their radio exploded, blew out the side of the 747, and after only a couple of minutes of flaming free-fall, all the passengers compassionately died on the rooftops and backyards of Lockerbie.

Later, after being tracked down by Interpol and then surrendered to the Scots by Kadaffy ( who also offered the surviving families some money--did he ever pay that off??? )-- this azzhole Megrahi was given life by the courts of Scotland.
Except, of course, if he caught cancer. Then he could go home.
Catch-22.

The residents of Lockerbie, who got part of their town destroyed as the jet fell out of the sky (along with a dozen of their neighbors, who were simultaneously destroyed), should grab their torches and storm the Parliament-- or whatever looney group actually made this sad decision to free Meghrabi-- and demand that a commando group go into Libia and bring this sick fck BACK to prison where he needs to be. LIFE means LIFE; he should die behind prison walls.

The surviving family members-- a LOT of them from New York (...the plane was carrying dozens of Syracuse University students )-- have been robbed of their dignity and, yes, their vengence, and the nasty, cancerous mass-murderer of nearly 300 people runs free, hailed as a hero. How did THAT happen???

If I were a terrorist leader, I'd use only smokers or cancer patients to kill my enemies. I could guarantee them that if they got caught throwing bombs and get tossed into prison in the West, at some point everybody will feel sorry for them because of their disease and set them free.
Westerners are nothing if not compassionate.

[ZZChristopher]

I'm hearing a lot of things said like this. It is part of the British legal system to release prisoners if they meet certain criteria including their life expectancy being 3 months. Obviously this law gets difficult when the crime gets to this magnitude but in a legal system there shouldn't be exceptions and double standards.

I don't buy the 'he didn't show compassion so why should he receive' it argument. I believe very much in the Ghandi quote 'an eye for a eye will leave us all blind'. I think it applies here as I don't see what forcing this man to die in a prison hospital as opposed to a Libyan one is going to solve. It's part of being the better person to forgive or at least show someone compassion in their dying moments.

It boils down to your morals. While the crime was inexcusable I'd rather live in a country that would release someone in their last moments on earth than send them to an electric chair, it's not like he's going on a pleasure cruise, he will be having a slow painful death.

[MizzDaizzy]

Last moments? OK, wait until he's gasping for breath and then put him on a plane where mum is waiting to hold his hand.

And does anyone now really believe that the newly-freed Libyan hero will be held in a prison?

Also, we're not talking about "an eye for an eye" or else Megrahi would have been strung by his neck over the streets of Lockerbie.

Is there anyone who wouldn't deserve this so called equal compassion?

What's the tipping point? How many would would such a killer have to murder to reach that level? Clearly 270 massacred souls isn't enough.

So where's the morality in that?

[outsitWrord]

How come lineupguy got banned?

[Nikkkola]

Yes, it's curious.

[Escamsrasiush]

OPINION

AUGUST 26, 2009

Britain and the Lockerbie Bomber

London officials seem to have been involved
in the decision to release Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi

By CON COUGHLIN

When former Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi to give up his pursuit of nuclear weapons in late 2003, Britain received world-wide praise for a remarkable diplomatic coup.

The plaudits heaped on the British government then stand in marked contrast to the international opprobrium its latest dealings with the Gadhafi clan are attracting.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government says the shameful decision to return Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi—convicted of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988—to Libya was taken solely on compassionate grounds. His release from prison last week was not, the government says, part of some secret deal between London and Tripoli.

Megrahi's doctors claim he's suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has only a few months to live. Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill insists his decision to release Megrahi was based on the requirements of Scottish law, which allows for terminally ill prisoners to be released from custody regardless of the magnitude of their crimes. Although it is part of the United Kingdom, Scotland enjoys its own justice system.

But even if the Scottish government acted solely in accordance with its legal obligations, strong rumors persist that Megrahi's return had more to do with the prospect of Britain enjoying lucrative trade deals with Libya than the state of the convicted murderer's health. Suspicions that there is more to this episode than the British government will admit center on the role Seif al-Islam Gadhafi has played in the affair. Gadhafi's second son, whose name translates as "sword of Islam," is widely regarded as the heir apparent.

Educated at the London School of Economics, Mr. Ghadafi claims to entertain no political ambitions and says his only official role is that of running a Tripoli-based family charitable foundation. But in Libya he is increasingly seen as the power behind the throne. He is also well known to Britain's political and intelligence establishment for the key role he is credited with playing in persuading his father to end Libya's decades-long international isolation by giving up its weapons of mass destruction.

For years, Ghadafi's regime was deemed by Washington to be one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. It also had a nuclear weapons program, though it maintained the pretense to visiting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency that its nuclear activities were purely peaceful—a fiction with which the agency concurred.

Then came the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, which removed Saddam Hussein from power. This had a profound impact on Col. Ghadafi, who, at his second son's prompting, secretly passed a letter to Downing Street indicating he wanted to come in from the diplomatic cold and end Libya's status as a pariah nation.

The British government reacted swiftly to the Gadhafi clan's overture. There followed a series of lengthy discussions between Seif al-Islam and Mark Allen, then head of counter-terrorism at Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), that were conducted within the elegant confines of London's Travellers Club. The result was Mr. Blair's triumphant announcement in late December 2003 that Col. Ghadhafi had made a "historic" decision to scrap the nuclear-weapons program whose existence he'd always denied.

Fast forward six years, and many of those who were central to the negotiations in 2003 continue to feature prominently in Anglo-Libyan affairs. Sir Mark Allen, to give him his present title, is now a senior executive with the British oil giant BP. BP is keen to develop its oil exploration business in Libya, which is said to be sitting on 44 billion barrels of untapped oil reserves.

Seif al-Islam Ghadafi, meanwhile, owns a $16 million mansion in London's northern suburbs and maintains close links with Britain's leading business figures. Earlier this summer he was a guest at the villa owned by the Rothschild banking family on the Greek island of Corfu. Another guest was Lord Peter Mandelson, Britain's business secretary and a close ally of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Lord Mandelson has confirmed that, during their stay at the villa, Mr. Ghadafi raised the issue of Megrahi's release. He insists he personally had nothing to do with releasing Megrahi. Nevertheless, Seif al-Islam Ghadafi remarked on Libyan television (after Megrahi's release) that, "In all commercial contracts for oil and gas with Britain [Megrahi] was always on the negotiating table."

Other evidence suggesting the British government, rather than its weaker Scottish partner, was the driving force behind Megrahi's release has emerged in the form of a letter Ivor Lewis, a junior minister at the British Foreign Office, wrote to Mr. MacAskill on Aug. 3. In that letter, parts of which have been leaked to the British press, Mr. Lewis tells Mr. MacAskill that there is no legal reason not to accede to Libya's request to transfer Megrahi into its custody under the terms of an agreement reached between Mr. Blair and Gadhafi senior in 2004 to strengthen U.K.-Libyan diplomatic ties. This agreement was negotiated in the wake of the historic nuclear deal.

According to a Scottish government source quoted in the British press over the weekend (who says he's seen the entire letter), Mr. Lewis wrote, "I hope on this basis you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application [for Megrahi's release]."

Certainly the involvement of both Lord Mandelson and Mr. Lewis in this sorry affair seems to undermine Mr. Brown's claim on Tuesday that he "had no role" in the decision to release Megrahi from prison. Mr. Brown's government still has many questions to answer about one of the least edifying episodes in his nation's hitherto impressive history of confronting international terrorism.

Mr. Coughlin is the executive foreign editor of the Daily Telegraph in London and the author of "Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam" (Ecco, 2009).

[Sydrothcoathy]

And over in the Garden State...




New Jersey fury at Gaddafi 'stay'

Officials in the US state of New Jersey have reacted angrily to the possibility that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi may pitch his tent there next month.


The Libyan embassy has owned the
mansion in Englewood since 1982

Col Gaddafi is expected to set up his Bedouin-style tent on Libyan Embassy-owned land in the town of Englewood as he attends the UN General Assembly.

The town mayor, state governor and legislators said he was not welcome.

They were angered by the "hero's welcome" home given to Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi last week.

A number of the 270 people killed when a Pan Am jet exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 were from New Jersey.

"I want him barred from New Jersey," New Jersey Congressman John Adler said of Col Gaddafi on Wednesday.

"Let him land at the UN by helicopter, do his business and get out of the country."

"People are infuriated that a financier of terrorism, who in recent days gave a hero's welcome to a convicted terrorist, would be welcomed to our shores, let alone reside in our city," Englewood Mayor Michael Wildes told Reuters news agency.

State Governor Jon Corzine echoed his views, saying: "Gaddafi is not welcome in New Jersey."

New Jersey senators Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg have urged the State Department to limit the Libyan leader's stay to the immediate area around the UN building in New York.

'Raw sensitivities'

Both the US state department and the Libyan Embassy said no decision had yet been taken as to where Col Gaddafi and his entourage will stay when the Libyan leader speaks at the UN on 23 September.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the US would keep in mind the "raw sensitivities" of the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims on the issue.

"Our priority has been and will remain the families of the victims of this tragedy," he told reporters.

"We, of course, are sensitive to the concerns of the communities that might be affected by any travel arrangements made for the Libyan delegation."

Col Gaddafi has faced strong criticism from the US and the UK for the jubilant scenes that greeted Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi upon his arrival home in Tripoli a week ago.

The decision by the Scottish government to free the terminally-ill 57-year-old on compassionate grounds has been met with dismay and anger by many of the relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/8223766.stm

Published: 2009/08/27 08:08:19 GMT

© BBC MMIX

[stuntduood]

I had no idea that this incident occurred or that some consider Lockerbie to be a retaliation for it:

From Wiki

Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by the United States Navy on Sunday 3 July 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz.

The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children,[1] ranking it the seventh among the deadliest airliner fatalities.[2] It was the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean and the highest death toll of any incident involving an Airbus A300 anywhere in the world. The Vincennes was traversing the Straits of Hormuz inside Iranian territorial waters and at the time of the attack, IR655 was within Iranian airspace.

According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. The Iranian government maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft. The event generated a great deal of controversy and criticism of the US. Some analysts have blamed US military commanders and the captain of the Vincennes for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.

In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice. As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed. The United States did not admit responsibility or apologize to the Iranian government.

[GrottereewNus]

A possible example of the "an eye for an eye" thing?

[EmxATW5m]

One of the many that achieved nothing.

[JakeBarkings]

As for your question, there are separate legal systems for Scotland and England. Justice, ie law, is completely devolved power so all legal matters are handled by the Scottish parliament with no input from the UK government. I'm can't think of an example but I'm sure there are some caveats to that.

M c C a s k i l l is a government minister who exercised a discretion to allow the release - which has nothing to do with a judge or the different legal systems.

The UK government ie I v a n L e w i s, M a n d e l s o n - they are alleged to have been involved too.

They have their oil deals now - and must be laughing, while, up north, the SNP and S a l m o n d, enthralled both by the oil companies and the boys from Westminster, are contemplating their defeat at the next election.

Many are saying that he shouldnt have been released. He should have been given the famous public health care.

The hue and cry around the internet will stick for years and the French are, for once, relieved: Welcome to the new world of the Haggis Eating Surrender Monkeys.

Here's an example.

[Psymoussy]

Yes, a Scottish government minister not a British one. Do some research.

Keep up the s p e l l i n g of the names of people involved and firing off irrelevant insults (What has France got to do with this?) its great for discussion.

[TaxSheemaSter]

Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release
From BBC

Megrahi served eight years in Scottish prisons after being convicted in 2001

Only a third of Scots believe the Lockerbie bomber should have been freed from prison last week, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested.

The ICM Research survey indicated almost three quarters thought Scotland's reputation was damaged by Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

But only 36% thought Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill should quit.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said Mr MacAskill had shown "guts" in making a hard but correct decision.

Mr MacAskill announced on 20 August that Megrahi, who is terminally-ill with prostate cancer, would be freed on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya.

Alex Salmond said Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has his ''100% backing''

He had served eight years of a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie, in southern Scotland, in which 270 people died.

A random sample of 1,005 adults from across Scotland were questioned by telephone on Wednesday and Thursday.

The survey found 60% thought the Scottish Government was wrong to release Megrahi, against 32% of respondents who believed it was the right decision.

Of those polled, 57% believed Megrahi should have remained in prison until he died, while 37% thought he should have been released at some point prior to his death.

Brian Taylor
BBC Scotland political editor

It may not last. It may fade. But, right now, people in Scotland seem decidedly hostile to the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Opposition to the particular decision taken by Kenny MacAskill is nearly two to one. Even offered options, a majority say that the Libyan should never have been released from jail.

Intriguingly, glancing at the figures in more detail, opinion against release appears particularly strong among younger people, with the elderly more inclined towards compassionate release.

But, in all age groups, more oppose the decision than support it.
Brian Taylor reflects on an 'unhappy' nation

Despite Mr MacAskill's insistence to the contrary, more than two thirds of those questioned - 68% - thought the decision was influenced by factors other than Megrahi's health, while only 20% believed it was made purely on compassionate grounds.

Mr MacAskill's controversial meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison on 4 August was also unpopular, according to the poll, with 52% believing the visit should not have taken place, and 36% saying it should.

The justice secretary has claimed the visit was required under the terms of the Libyan government's prisoner transfer request, but this has been disputed by opposition politicians

Almost three quarters of those polled (74%) said the affair had damaged the standing of the Scottish Government in the eyes of voters, with the same proportion believing the release of Megrahi had damaged Scotland's reputation.

Only 11% said it had enhanced the reputation of the country, while 10% said it had made no difference one way or the other.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also apparently been damaged by the controversy over the release of Megrahi, despite his insistence that it was purely a matter for the Scottish government.

The poll suggested that 34% believed Mr Brown's reputation had been damaged "a lot", with a further 33% saying it had been damaged "a little".

But only 29% of those surveyed said the prime minister had not been damaged.

A minority of people - 39% - said they thought the UK government should have tried to influence the decision by the Scottish Government, while 52% said it was right not to get involved.

Responding to the poll findings, First Minister Alex Salmond stood by his justice minister.

He said: "I acknowledge that these were difficult, controversial decisions but somebody had to take a decision and it fell to the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to do so.

"Sometimes in life and politics and in government, there's no easy option available. You have to take hard choices because you think and believe you're doing the right thing and you know it just takes guts to govern sometimes and Kenny MacAskill showed that."

Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray called on Mr Salmond to explain how he would repair Scotland's damaged reputation.

He added "I believe the whole process was mishandled from start to finish and a clear majority say it was wrong for Mr MacAskill to visit Megrahi in prison. Kenny MacAskill must return to the parliament to justify his mishandling of this affair."

Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said the findings showed the Scottish Government was wrong to release Megrahi - and she demanded to know what "murky deals have been going on behind the scenes".

For the Liberal Democrats, MSP Mike Rumbles said the poll confirmed public anger at the SNP's handling of the affair and its failure to address other options for the "compassionate" treatment of Megrahi.

Megrahi, who has always maintained his innocence, was the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing.

He returned to a hero's welcome in Libya after being released from Greenock Prison.

The release sparked widespread criticism in the UK, as well as from US politicians, law enforcement agencies and victims' relatives.

An internet campaign was also launched calling on Americans to boycott Scottish and UK goods over the release.

[Retapleapse]

Yes, a Scottish government minister not a British one. Do some research.

Keep up the s p e l l i n g of the names of people involved and firing off irrelevant insults (What has France got to do with this?) its great for discussion.

I know that McC is a Minister of Scotland. I was referring to the media getting hold of the story about Westminster being involved - and running with it.

May I suggest that you tone the level of personal vitriol and retort down? What is driving you to fire a post like that off?

[Khurlxgq]

Your last three posts have been insulting and over the top. Consider how you're coming across.