[RNATB’s lawyer] My client has no further comment on this matter. [/RL]
He should have only been given compassionate leave if he had shown remorse. Under the Socttish system of jurisprudence he was guilty of the crime and I think it should be a requirement that the prisoner show some remorse for his or her actions.
I am pretty sure this guys didn’t do that.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi made a statement on his release, which can be read here.
“Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing… I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out – until my diagnosis of cancer… To those victims’ relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered. To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.”
That’s not remorse for his actions.
Why would he show remorse if he was innocent?
ETA: He was not found guilty ‘under the Scottish system’. His trial was closed.
What do you mean it was closed? I don’t know what that means. He was not found guilty? How were they keeping him in jail? I honestly don’t know the answers to these questions.
And I didn’t say he would show remorse, I said remorse should be a condition for compassionate release, presuming that the legal system found him guilty. If he wants to maintain his innocence and not show remorse that is his options. If his release was based on the fact that he was indeed innocent then of course I would expect there to be no remorse, but the release here was not becuase he was innocent. As far as Scotland is concerned he did it.
He wasn’t tried in the normal method under Scottish law. He was tried in a closed court with no jury, just a judge (tribunal?), and did not have the same access to defence lawyers and the like that most criminal defendants get.
He was found guilty. He was not necessarily found guilty in a fair and impartial manner.
And Scotland doesn’t think he’s guilty, for the record. The Scottish penal system does.
Enough. You much have you read, hmm? You seem pretty quick to jump to assuming I;m ignorant because I don’t agree with you.
Because I don’t think the mission was carried off successfully. That is, they intended one thing and inadvertently got something else.
No, I can guarrantee you I wouldn’t much care, just as I cururently do not much care. While I think, the release is a miscarriage of justice, it’s also pretty trivial in the rgand scheme of things. His release won’t really affect me or anyone I particularly care about. Many US citizens have been subjected to far worse in overseas courts and I have yet to freak out over it.
Yeah… I’m just cheeringly glad that somebody was convicted. That’s why I’m running around the streets naked, demanding action, ACTION!
Seriously, WTF? Are you too brain-damaged to read my posts? In think he was guilty, but I don’t care very much. At worst, we’re talking mild displeasure.
I’ll let jjimm comment on whether he thinks you ignorant, and if so for what reason, but let’s have a look at your theory here:
Question “since the detonator was known to be attached to a 45-minute timer that was triggered at 4,000 metres, can you explain why it didn’t go off en-route between Malta and Frankfurt, or between Frankfurt and London?”
Your answer: “I don’t think the mission was carried off successfully. That is, they intended one thing and inadvertently got something else.”
So your hypothesis is that the detonator failed on two occasions in a row, but then sparked to life on the 3rd.
I would welcome any cites or background reasoning that supports this theory.