Lockerbie bomber to be released

Conscript

Conscript

Conscript

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2004
Posts
10,896
Location
Kent
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8198603.stm

The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be freed on compassionate grounds next week, the BBC understands.Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, is serving life for murdering 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 exploded in 1988.
Scottish ministers described the development as "complete speculation".
Kathleen Flynn, whose son died on the plane, told the BBC she was horrified the "terrorist" could be released.
Click to expand...
What on Earth is going on? First, Ronnie Biggs released from serving his sentence because he was "terminally ill", only to make a "miraculous recovery" days later (Hmmmmm... :rolleyes:). Now, the man convicted of killing 270 people in one of the worst terrorist attacks in British history is to be released for the same reasons.

Does anyone else think he should be left to rot? Why should the fact that he is terminally ill allow him to be granted early release? If he didn't want to die in prison, perhaps he should have considered the consequences of being responsible for the deaths of such a vast number of innocent people.

Why should we be forced to show compassion for those who seemingly showed none when they committed their crimes?

(I should add, there is apparently some debate over whether Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is guilty of the crime, but that aside, assuming he is guilty, my questions still stand.)
 
Last edited:
Honestly if he'd shown complete remorse and tried to do something good with his life, that sort of thing, then I don't see any harm letting him die with family. Thing is as far as I understand it he's always denied the charges, so it's hard to see how he could be remorseful.
 
Given that most of the families of the victims involved believe him to be innocent of the crime, I think it's probably more important that their wishes are respected and he be released to die at home.
 
platypus said:
Given that most of the families of the victims involved believe him to be innocent of the crime, I think it's probably more important that their wishes are respected and he be released to die at home.
Click to expand...

+1

This is nothing like Biggs. As I understand it, the conviction was unreliable.
 
In which case, surely there should be some sort of inquiry into holding him prisoner at all? Either way, it highlights problems in the justice system for me; either he is innocent and has been wrongly imprisoned on a shaky conviction for all this time, or he is guilty and the questions I raised in the OP stand.

There is no need to call me non-sensical for asking questions of this judgment, especially as I already noted in the OP that there was a question over his guilt.
 
it's not a new rule. You only hear about it on high profile cases.
I see no reason why people should not be released if they are at deaths door, to spend the last few weeks in hospital with friends and family. As that is what happens they will be transferred to a normal hospital and then have guards 24/7. What is the point of that. Release them and the guards can go do something useful.

However the conditions applied with Briggs release are utterly stupid and wrong.
 
Conscript said:
In which case, surely there should be some sort of inquiry into holding him prisoner at all?
Click to expand...

It's Libya. Do you really think justice is a priority over there? It was politically expedient to ensure a conviction as soon as possible.
 
If he didn't do it then he should be released with compensation (minus board and lodgings of course!), not released on compassionate grounds because he is dying. The comparison with Biggs is valid because they were both released for the same reason.
 
Evangelion said:
It's Libya. Do you really think justice is a priority over there? It was politically expedient to ensure a conviction as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

Im not quite sure I understand....he was convicted by a Scottish court and is being held in a Scottish prison. What does that have to do with Libyan justice? Unless you are talking about returning him to Libyan soil.
 
The logic behind the release of both of them is pretty sound, it's cheaper to release them to die in hospital than for them to die in hospital with a prison officer standing guard over them.
 
Isn't the issue here that there are serious doubts about his guilt, an appeal has been approved but he won't live long enough to see it through?

Some prior witnesses have now said under sworn affidavit they were bribed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom