Scotland releases Lockerbie bomber on "compassionate grounds"- Page 2

[NYadgal]

Posted: 8/21/09 at 10:25am

He also didn't think that the display in Libya was inappropriate.

I understand being a criminal defense attorney - and making sure that everyone is allowed 'due process'. But, that's very different than believing that this was a good decision.

I am sure the people of England and Scotland are just as upset about this as we are. But, they have no say. Unless this justice is an elected official.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/21/09 at 10:32am

Who would Jesus release on compassionate grounds?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/21/09 at 1:15pm

I read that Prince Andrew is considering cancelling a scheduled visit to Libya.

At least that would be some sort of gesture.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 8/21/09 at 5:39pm

Even I, the last of the bleeding hearts, think this was a big mistake.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/21/09 at 7:56pm

As usual, the victims (& their families) take it on the chin.

Khaddfi is our buddy now.

[Jenna Maroney]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 11:03am

I'm surprised everyone across the board here is disgusted by the release. Because in some circles I hang out in, the outrage is at the victims' families, who they say should STFU because they were paid $10M per victim from the people who were truly responsible for this (and that the guy they're bitching about was probably a scapegoat).

That's a lot of money ... certainly more than what the Sept. 11 families received, no?

[NYadgal]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 9:34pm

I'm glad I don't hang out in your circles.

It's not about money.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 3:24pm

i am bitterly disappointed that his charter didn't blow up on its way back to tripoli. i mean it would have been just perfect and in another era almost guaranteed.

but ghaddafi's kid talking about the trade deal kinda puts one more nail in gordo's coffin as pm. he's less popular than maggie at this point.

and how bad does it look for mccain that he was tweeting about hanging with the col. days before this went down?

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 3:34pm

"That's a lot of money ... certainly more than what the Sept. 11 families received, no?"

How much would be enough for the loss of one of your family members?

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 3:47pm

I, for one, was very struck by the Justice Minister's interview on CNN. He spoke very eloquently and truthfully, a type of honest eloquence that we rarely if ever see displayed by politicians in our country.

And Wolf Blitzer, who I generally like, asked irrelevant, baiting questions, such as "What if it had been your child on that plane?" and "How do you feel that your name will now forever be linked to the release of a mass murderer?"

Both of those questions did not pertain to his position, nor should they be relevant in the matter. They were knee-jerk, go-for-the-emotional-manipulation, look-at-it-from-one-angle questions that have become so much a part of our national discourse on so many issues. ("How would you feel if it was YOUR grandmother up against a death panel?")

But the Justice Minister did not get angry and still stated his case well. His case, for those who haven't seen him speak, is that the Scottish justice system is based on justice, but also on compassion. Just because this man did not show any sense of compassion, Scotland should not stoop to his level. We are better than that, for compassion is given to those who show none. In many ways, the argument resembles certain elements of the torture debate. "They didn't show restraint and decency when THEY torture, so we should torture them! Tit-for-tat!" Which, of course, goes against what many consider to be the essence of our country.

When it comes right down to it, doing what is right isn't what is easy the majority of the time.

The way people talk about this Justice Minister, including some in this thread, you would think that the act of showing compassion is equal to the atrocity committed by the bomber. Which is the equivalent of comparing Obamacare to the Nazis. It's the same base-level reactionary discourse that is destroying any sort of real debate about ANY issue in this country.

Attack the person and attack the character of the person and attack the ideas of a person so hyperbolically that it becomes impossible to have any sort of effective and potentially enlightening debate.

I am not saying that everyone has to believe it was the correct thing to do to release him. I do not even know if I think so myself. (However, is the idea of a justice system based on justice AND compassion that ridiculous? If we lose our ability to show compassion, even to the most monstrous humans, don't we allow them to take some of our own humanity?)

But do not assassinate the character of a person doing their job and making a very tough decision he believed to the correct one. Disagree with him, debate his ideas.

But saying things like "I don't know how that guy sleeps at night. (the judge, OR the bomber)" is the very sort of thing DESTROYING any sort effective and progressive discourse in this country. And it takes a Justice Minister from another nation to show this, as we certainly have slim-pickings of politicians over here interested in civil discourse of ideas.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 3:52pm

Totally disagree.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 3:54pm

Why?

Why is it helpful to compare the Justice Minister to the bomber? Why is that fair?

How does that help move along the discourse in a meaningful manner?

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 3:59pm

I don't agree that this heinous criminal (or others of this kind) deserves any compassion.

I don't agree that justice AND compassion in this case isn't ridiculous.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 4:10pm

That's fair enough. It certainly is a legitimate position to say that in some cases there should be justice and only justice, not justice and compassion. I would disagree, I think, but that is a fair (and very popular, I believe) stance to take.

The problem comes in with unfair attacks on the Justice ministers character and conscience.

Also, there are other complexities to the case. There is apparently overwhelming evidence that the conviction was wrongful, and the man is innocent. There are numerous reports of miscarriage of justice by Scottish officials in the case. This may all be false. But what if it weren't? Should that or should that not factor into the debate? I'm asking in earnest. It comes down to the old question, would you rather see an innocent man punished or a guilty man walk free?

Also, he was in the Scottish justice system. And it is by that system that he was held and by that system that he was released. Three words that are engraved on the Scottish Parliament?s Mace are justice, compassion, integrity.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 4:14pm

Well I'm basing my opinion on the supposition that he is guilty.

What are the reasons you think he deserves compassion, assuming he IS guilty.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 4:22pm

Well, I will let Justice Minister MacAskill speak for himself. Because, while I am not sure if I agree with the decision in the case, it deserves to be debated in a way where MacAskill is not vilified for making a very tough decision he felt was right.

In MacAskill's words: And as we were seeing, in Scotland, justice is equally tempered with mercy. Those who commit an offense must be punished and have to pay a price.

Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn't show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.

He was justly convicted, but we're allowing him some mercy to return home to die.


Also: But in Scotland, our justice system is not predicated on vengeance, but on bringing people to account. And equally, our value system is predicated on seeking to treat people in a matter that is merciful and compassionate, even if they do not show to us as we would wish to show to them.


Also: I'm proud to serve as the cabinet secretary for justice in the government of Scotland. This is a decision I did not seek to make. It's a decision I would not have wanted to make. But it was a decision that had to be made. An application was made by him, and an application for prisoner transfer was put in by the Libyan government. The buck, as you would say in America, stops with me. I have made that decision following due process, following the laws and guidance that we have in Scotland. And I believe that living up to the values and the humanity that we possess in Scotland. Many will disagree. Many do agree. I know that it divides opinion in the world as it divides opinion in the family. But my responsibility was to make that decision, and I did so on the basis that in Scotland, we want justice done, but we want compassion possessed and capable of being shown. Two wrongs never make a right.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 4:32pm

"Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn't show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values."

Well, there's the rub-he considers it lowering ourselves by keeping him in prison. For me, that is a big problem.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 5:03pm

you know, I guess we shouldn't be lowering ourselves any longer-let good ole Chas. Manson go home!

[blueroses]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 5:08pm

"Well, there's the rub-he considers it lowering ourselves by keeping him in prison. For me, that is a big problem."

Me too. But I found the "hero's welcome" even more appalling! I hope he dies in excruciating pain.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 5:24pm

They should have just put him out of his misery while he was in jail.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 5:26pm

To put things in a wider context, Scotland is not far away from another region where many terrorists have been released early from jail sentences, not on compassionate grounds, but in the name of a peace process.

One terrorist-in-denial is now a senior figure in that region's democratically elected government.

And there has been no international outcry about that.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 5:28pm

How is this any different than Susan Atkins who also has cancer and wants to die outside of prison walls?

The main difference is that it is an entirely different government involved. It's sort of weird that it wasn't the US that effed up ridiculously this time.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 6:31pm

But in Scotland, our justice system is not predicated on vengeance, but on bringing people to account.

Then Scottish justice was ill-served by this release.

The minister acted without conscience. He should be vilified and condemned and forced to step down. The Scottish people owe an apology to the victims' families and everyone in the world who believes that terrorism is wrong.

Does "Scottish justice" allow every murderer and rapist to be released on a cancer diagnosis?

If "Scottish justice" allows that for cancer, how about diabetes? How about the flu?

Exactly how dire must an illness be for a convicted murderer to be released on grounds of such ill-considered compassion?

Or does "Scottish justice" extend this compassion only to this one convicted murderer?

Oh--and if there is doubt about the conviction, let it be overturned in a court of law, not commuted with corrupt compassion.

Methinks "Scottish justice" has not advanced much since Great Birnam Wood to Dunsinane came.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 9:35pm

and now, on the radio, I'm hearing that it's not even proven he has pancreatic cancer.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/24/09 at 11:20pm

I'd like to see more compassion extended to victims and to their families than to mass murderers and terrorists. And I'd like to see a judge more focused on justice than on misguided notions of "compassion."