Have you tried crossword puzzles?
Who cares if he’s guilty or not? Somebody must pay for the crime of taking 270 innocent lives. One crazy Arab is good as any other.
Fuck Scotland, and fuck all Scots. True justice would be putting this madman terrorist on live TV, “Truman Show” style, so the world can watch him writhe and suffer as the cancer slowly devours him from within. Viewers can vote on which pain medications to withhold, or which sensitive parts of his anatomy should be hooked up to electrodes and zapped, abu-Gharib style. But noooo, socialism demands we show compassion to the asshole muslim motherfucker.
Again, fuck Scotland. I’m gonna burn down a few golf courses today in protest. :mad:
Well, I know how hard it is to keep them down the rest of the time.
I think you should destroy some more bottles of Scotch too.
whoosh
Won’t somebody please think of the first class airlines?!
Only if you give us back our jazz and pizza.
This has started a new round of my whackjob RW nujob cousin braying about how we need to “sit back and let the Germans have their way with Europe for a while before we bail them out a third time.” Won’t anybody think of ME!?!
Thanks a lot Scotland.
Just yesterday I stumbled across the “anti-Straight Dope”, if you will (davidicke.com) and slogged thru a thread about Lockerbie that I assumed was utter bat-shit crazyness.
The gist (I think) was that Lockerbie was somehow “allowed” to happen as “payback” for the Iranian airliner shot down by the Vincennes (spelling?). Lots of coverup and political wrangling, blah blah blah. I paid little attention.
And now this, here. I guess I better study that link up-page…
But seriously, the rest of that website is utter bat-shit crazyness. Someone puts forth the theory that Jacky actually shot JFK! :eek:
This might be a concern if the US right were ever NOT up in arms about SOMETHING.
I cannot agree with this line of reasoning. Just because someone acts without compassion; that means we should match them? Can’t we aim just a little higher than that? Obviously the US disagrees with the whole concept of compassionate release, that doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to. It refreshing to see a country stick to its principles instead of putting them to the wayside when it becomes convenient. Hasn’t enough moral-blindness already been justified under the guise of dealing with terrorists?
IMO.
Hey man, let’s not do anything irrational! (Unless you mean “destroy” in the colloquial sense?) I don’t allow my hatred for terrorism to interfere with my love of fresh hummus & warm pita bread. On the other hand, I’m also boycotting invisible tape for masking tape, and I’m wearing undies under my kilt.
Ha ha ha, I just now got that. 
hi-five
And it that other thread people might argue that it’s because we don’t have the death penalty in the UK, that a likely innocent man didn’t find himself on the wrong end of that rope.
Not to rain on anybody’s parade, but Scotland’s motives may not be entirely pure.
In the US, at least, a ‘compassionate release’ is often code for ‘We don’t want to pay for your expensive medical treatment’
Hmm, well I’m going to have to assume you’re a hermit or something, because otherwise I’m not sure how it’s escaped your recent attention that we in the UK have evil-communist-healthcare-for-all, (=HITLER!).
I’m glad he’s being released. Why should the British taxpayer have to pay for his medical care?
I know this might seem a little alien, but I’d be perfectly happy with paying for his medical care if he were staying, which in any event he isn’t. By way of some sort of, ‘sorry about the whole politically-murky miscarriage of justice and locking you up for 8 years thing’. It’s also kind of the point of UHC, but that’s getting more than enough thread coverage elsewhere.
I do not disagree with “the whole concept of compassionate release.”
But there are degrees.
Those convicted of less heinous crimes should absolutely have the chance to be rehabilitated and turn their lives around.
A murderer of 270 doesn’t fall into this category. IMO, anyone who does such a thing shouldn’t ever see the outside of a prison again. “Justice” and “Punishment” are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Now, if al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted (which I now allow is a strong possibility), then that’s a game changer. It sounds as if the Scottish authorities may be trying to right a wrong here, and I’ll cut them some slack.
But if there weren’t reasonable doubt attached to this conviction, I’d be standing by every word of my OP.
Those are often a source of frustration, but seldom outrage.
You’re unfortunately completely wrong. If he was wrongly convicted, then this has wronged him further. Now he never gets to have an appeal into his conviction, and the relatives of 270 people will curse his name for ever.
You want to know how to tell there’s some ulterior motives here? Simple, politicans have let it happen. Think how many easy brownie points all parties would have made by keeping him in jail if it was just a case of his innocence. All involved get some stage time on the international game, showing what good statesmen they are, but how tough they are on terrorists, nae sweat. In a couple of months the problem disappears.
And just think how many levels this could have been stopped on. Salmond has all the morals of pondscum, and this is a vote loser. Even if he did have a sudden outbreak of conscience, for all the cobblers of an independent scotland, Gordon Brown could have twisted Salmond’s arm enough, or bribed him enough, if he wanted to. And if that wasn’t an option, you really think the US couldn’t have forced the issue easily enough? Not a problem. Salmond is a 2nd division politician, he wouldn’t even be able to outstare Hilary, yet alone the president of the US.
So, why did a series of politicians allow a big, vote losing mess to roll on like this. Only two reasons really stand out:
- The only condition imposed on his release appears to have been dropping his appeal. Well, that’s a definite posibility there, as even the known dodgy issues in his original conviction could prove nasty for all governments involved
- Business interests in Libya wanted an end to this.
So please, don’t for a minute think this was Scottish politicians doing the right thing. The hint is in the word politician - they’re just as self serving and conniving as the breed is everywhere else in the word.
Compassionate grounds for release in the UK is granted in cases where someone has less than three months to live. It is not the same as parole.
Regardless, your position leaves you with the problem of how far you extend that line. How heinous does a crime have to be not to be allowed compassionate release? 1 murder, 10, 100? There is no sensible line to draw.