The Lockerbie Bomber

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was the Lbyan convicted of the Pan Am aircraft bombing and crashed onto a Scottish town bac in 1988. The terrorist attack claimed the lives of 270 people many of whom were Americans heading back to the USA. In 2001 he was convicted in the Netherlands under Scottish Law to Life Imprisonment.

Several months ago he deverloped Porstate Cancer and recently has appealed for release on Compassionate Grounds. The decision on his release will be made tomorrow afternoon by Scotland's Justice secretary.

The idea of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi being released on compassionate grounds has not been welcomed by many in the USA, the families and many senators as well as your secretary of state Hilary Clinton has urged the Scottish Government to keep him behind bars. In the UK howeverm the families of loved ones who died in the bombing are calling for him to be released.

BBC News

I find it particularly interesting that this is the second news article recently that states a difference of opinion on both sides of the Atlantic regarding two issues. There is the McKinnon case which i left a topic about the other week and now this one.

Do you think the man guilty of killing 270 should be released early on compassionate grounds because of his health?

I don't think that he should be released.

Of course I think he should have been exacuted after his conviction.

I doubt we can quantify any nation as feeling one way or the other, on the whole. I'm sure opinion is equally diverse on both sides of the pond.

Forgiveness. That is a tough one. Especially for acts as heinous as the one we're discussing. Can we, should we, forgive him? Even if we do, does that mean he should be released? Does compassion automatically follow forgiveness? Seems like a bit of a non sequitur, to me.

Part of me says, "Hang the bastard son of a bitch and be done with it!" As in, he should be exterminated like a cockroach.

On the other hand, if you follow the teachings in the New Testament, you would know that forgiveness is a pretty big deal. When Jesus taught people to pray, in the sermon on the mount, he taught that we should ask to be forgiven in the same manner that we forgive others. Almost like karma, in a way. The Gospels and the Epistles are pretty clear on the value of forgiveness, I think.

I'm glad it's not my decision. I could probably come up with several points of rhetorical debate, to support or attack both sides. I just don't think it's clear cut or easy.

Therefore, $myopinion = NULL;

I was mixed on it too. Alot of people i know don't believe he is the only one involved and infact played a very small part in the bombings. Conspiracy Theory i know, but some of the things are very plausable.

It was confirmed by the Scottish Justice Secretary that he will be released on compassionate grounds. I wonder what kind of reaction this will have in America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 197370.stm

Ridiculous. The man committed a crime that claimed the life of 200+ people. Think of how many people were burned to death, suffocated, or decapitated in a fiery blaze.

Fogiveness is between him and God and someone here should arrange his meeting. It's not our place to pass on forgiveness or not cause mankind across the globe does not singularly. And.. no terrorist never acts alone and he probably did play a small role. Well, too bad for him he was a pawn. That was bad decision number 1 and bad decision #2 was following through. We all make bad decisions and have to live with it. The scottish justice made one today by releasing him which I guess we all have to live with.

This is all stuff he should have thought about before killing innocent people and changing the lives of hundreds of families. Not being able to be free when you get sick, see loved ones, sit behind bars, poor healthcare, tossing salads... these are all reasons plus many more why I don't rob a bank when I get low on cash if my moral center fails.

Furthermore, is his condition fatal? Some people beat cancer though his odds may not be good atleast he has odds to live or die unlike the people he helped kill. Plus, when people get a short time to live, what makes people think this nut (cause he's got to have some bad wiring to kill that many people) isn't going to use his remaining days to kill even more in a bigger attack. Doesn't seem he's got a lot to live for.

Sad day for mankind today. If I had a loved one on that plane this wouldn't even be an issue cause people would be like...
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi who? Cause I would spend my remaining days/money tracking him down so I can watch him eat his own....
And if I got convicted then I would accept my punishment even if I developed some sickness in prison.

Scripture Based:

Predating the commandments, was capital punishment. Noah was told "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed." This predates the old covenant/testament and does not go away when the law was fulfilled and the new covenant/testament was created.

Forgiveness is not something you can give to someone who has not asked for it. Some circles believe if you forgive someone, you did your part. On the contrary, repentance of the act that wronged you is needed before you can forgive, otherwise it should be a subject never swept under the rug unless it was minute. Otherwise you are condoning them in the first place by just saying you forgive them.

If he has repented, then he should be apologizing to the families publicly through letters. Then the family can forgive (and should if they have any value in their own forgiveness if they have been forgiven). Then he should still be executed.

I doubt he will apologise as he maintains his innocence to this day.

The families will probably never forgive him, but i can see this quickly being swept under the carpet in regards to both of our governments.

I totally agree with dyfrin. Very well put. This topic should be closed now.

If mass hypocrisy and stupidity is the criteria, it's a sad day for mankind everyday.

I probably wouldn't let him out, but one thing I thought listening to the family members interviewed, one of whom agreed he should be released because it would be cruel to do otherwise, and one of whom was vehemently and actively opposed to it, was that altho sort of baffled by his attitude, I would much rather end up as the former person -- the second was way over-obsessed and had clearly allowed herself to be consumed by hatred and anger.

If people continuously hold these kind of grudges for decades and even generations, the circumstances will just replicate themselves endlessly. It's totally conceivable that many violent terrorist have themselves lost family members and in some sense understand themselves to be taking an appropriate form of vengeance.

Of course, the bible and many other similar texts more or less encourage such an endless cycle of stupidity and violence, hopefully ending in an apocalypse for everyone

But these people are allowing a judicial system inacted by a state of laws governing a peaceful society fulfill the 'act' of vengeance for them whom decided putting the man in prison was appropriate for his actions. And we all know the channels that must be taken to get a conviction or release. You've got burden of evidence, appeals, etc. Instead terrorist just gather with buddies that have some mis-guided belief that generalizes people who they think have wronged them in someway and in actuality don't have anything to do with the terrorists agenda. They plan and set into action their appropriate punishment which is always a re-course of death. Death is not the penalty for all crimes.

Ultimately, people just want justice. They don't carry the grudge for decades as long as the person who wrongs them is sentenced accordingly to the crime. They remorse and continue with life and try to think about their missed loved ones life rather than their death that is to say if they remember them that much at all on a day to day basis. So, just cause someone wants the man to finish out his appropriate punishment as already decided by a governing body does not mean they are consumed with hatred and anger all of their days. Don't be ridiculous, mk27. I do see what you mean though, but she's completely justified in being that mad. I'm sure alot of hatred and anger arose when they reopened this terrorist's case. This is something the families are trying to put behind them but this guy won't just quietly waste away in prison like he should because he MADE THE WRONG DECISIONS IN LIFE. So, because we wants some type of appeal and be in the news he's bringing back all these bad memories to these families that have been trying to continue with life.

The cycle you talk about is always going to be there as long as the terrorist blame innocent people for something the people don't even know anything about. So, there is no fix for a terrorist. If an american took down a plane full of terrorist families...well, we know what the punishment is for that.

I do agree, 'if mass hypocrisy and stupidiy is the criteria, it's a sad day for mankind everyday'.

Sorry, brother, but I think your view of Scripture is very narrow. I could cite a multitude of passages that encourage forgiveness and are not in any way predicated on repentance. I think you're confusing human forgiveness and divine forgiveness - which does require repentance.

Also, you started your post with "Scripture Based:", but only offered one unreferenced sentence in support of your argument. I wonder if you could elaborate. Currently your argument is conjectural not evidential.

BTW: God becoming incarnate as man and suffering death did, in fact, change everything. That was the point.



For better or worse, that system was inacted so we wouldn't become him.



Yep. Timothy McVeigh and us do know the punishment for that. I guess we're making up for all those years of not putting people's decapitated heads on pikes.

*shakes head* ...and some call us arrogant.

Very good point. I imagine the families were subject to no end of inquiry from the media, and am I sure if it were me it would, at least, open an old wound and of course I would say "I hope he rots in hell, please don't let him out".

But the woman I heard went on for some minutes about Libya and Qaddafi. Without any intention of defending "them", it does seem slightly unhealthy to me that this woman, whom I suspect would otherwise be unpoliticized, has developed this hatred well beyond the figure of al-Megrahi and still quickly and eagerly descends into a global political diatribe about it. Imagine if everyone who lost a loved one to violence -- whether it's war, crime, or terrorism -- permanently dedicated themselves to that hard a line. The violence would only snowball!

I wonder a little if the difference between America and the UK here is somewhat related to WWII (my mom is an English immigrant who was born on Sept 3, 1939, aka the day Churchill declared war, and my dad grew up in occupied Denmark). If your brother or father or sister or mother were killed by the Germans, how long would you hate Germans? It doesn't matter that the government changed -- you know that most of the people who were the Nazis responsible probably went unpunished. But at a certain point you must also realize there is a better way to deal with grief, resentment, conflict, etc. America was not overrun or subject to civilian casualties, and is still a spoiled bunch of brats in that sense -- easy to provoke, and immature in temperament.

Again, I wouldn't have freed the guy and that's easy to understand IMO. I'm just trying to get my head around all this Scottish "compassion".


Let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by Us in Vietnam and the Middle East. America has invested heavily in the cycle of violence, probably because, as I just said and despite events like 911 (which really is a drop in a bucket, death wise), it has never had to pay much of a real price for it. That's not a justification for terrorism*, it's just an observation about the consequences of wearing rose colored glasses when you look one way, and a laser scope when you look the other.

* I would bet money that the hard-core violent types at the heart of terrorism, people who have committed themselves to military training and would go for almost any excuse to use it -- which there appear to be some number of people like that in America, ala McVeigh -- exploit other people who would otherwise never have picked up a weapon on the basis of the fact that those people have been unfairly wronged somehow, possibly quite severely, and can be persuaded that there is a course of action to take. I doubt that they actually "blame innocent people", but, like an Apache or drone pilot, they sometimes perhaps have 'higher' priorities. Not to equate the two completely, just to indicate that they must bleed into each other at some point. Altho they do come close, not even terrorists are out there screaming "WE ARE EVIL AND PROUD OF IT! LONG LIVE EVIL!! EVIL WILL TRIUMPH!". Why is that?

I feel in a way i have to defend my country here.

I was having a look at the map linking everything regarding al-Megrahi and found it quite interesting how big a role Scotland had in this. The town of Lockerbie is located on the south west of Scotland just next to Scotland's border to England.

The flight departed London and was flying to New York, the way the flights go from London is they swing north up across the south of Scotland before crossing the pond. I don't for a second believe the bomb went off in Scotland, i believe it went off in England and as the plane descended it eventually crashed in Scotland. So, the only real crime committed in Scotland was that of the bombed aircraft landing on one of our towns.

Skip forward several years now, al-Megrahi is one of the main suspects accused of the bombing and is brought to court. He is sentanced under Scottish law to impisonment in a Scottish prison. He maintains his innocent and appeals, in the meantime he develops Prostate cancer. There are calls for him to be released on compassionate grounds. The Justice secretary of Scotland grants him permission to leave and then there is this massive outcry.

There were a number of options proposed to the Justice Secretary, one of which i found comical coming from Hilary Clinton. She requested that if al-Megrahi was given permission to leave prison on compassionate grounds he would remain in Scotland and not be allowed to return to Libya. Why?

The more i read about this on various sites i frequent i am being led to believe there is more to it than we are reading in the media. Infact, the media here is even coming up with one of the main conspiracy theories. What if he was wrongfully accused and was a scapegoat? what if both the UK government and American government are hiding the real story?

To be honest, i hate to think people think lowly of Scotland and it's Justice system (a system in which a large number of countries base their laws on). Perhaps Kenny MacAskill was righting some wrongs by releasing him on compassionate grounds based on the weak evidence he was given.

Interesting to see the UK Government kept quiet regarding the issue when MacAskill wanted their input...

BBC

I don't think you need to defend your country. Your judicial system, like most in the western world, are designed to protect the wrongly accused and not be overreaching or overly emotional in their punishments.

I'm not sure why you would find Hilary Clinton's suggestion comical. It makes perfect sense to me that you wouldn't want to send a terrorist home to become a rallying point for like minded people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8213077.stm

I can appreciate this, but why would she expect the Scottish taxpayer to fund our police force to look after him until he passed?

If she was willing to pay for his protection then yes i wouldn't have had a big problem with him staying.