Skip to main content

Post content has been hidden

To unblock this content, please click here

Lady Vixen
Beginner February 2007

The release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi

Lady Vixen, 20 of August of 2009 at 16:02 Posted on Off Topic Posts 0 34

Can someone please explain to me what the decision has been taken to release the 'Lockerbie Bomber'. I know it is on 'compassionate grounds' as he has terminal cancer but I've not heard of the Government regularly releasing all patients that are near death.

I know this is an emotive issue but I cannot see a reason for him being released and would like someone to show me the other side of the story.

34 replies

Latest activity by teenybash, 21 of August of 2009 at 12:20
  • Ms. Scarlett
    Beginner April 2007
    Ms. Scarlett ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I think terminally ill patients are generally released as they reach the end - sure I heard something about Ronnie Biggs being released or that his release was planned (think he also has cancer). I know a lot of people have severe doubts about the soundness of his conviction but that shouldn't have anything to do with it, I think it's purely on the basis of his illness.

    • Reply
  • H
    Beginner
    Headless Lois ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I would be interested in this too, as I cannot fathom why he should have any grounds for compassion.

    L
    xx

    • Reply
  • hazel
    VIP July 2007
    hazel ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    My understanding is that many prisoners who are terminally ill are released, as long as they don't pose a threat to the public.

    I think that it is important that we do show compassion in these cases.

    • Reply
  • Ms. Scarlett
    Beginner April 2007
    Ms. Scarlett ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I think everyone should be treated with compassion, whatever they've done - treating someone harshly and punishing them doesn't mean treating them without compassion. I think most people would accept that there's a line to be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable treatment of prisoners, and the question is purely whether keeping terminally ill patients near the end in prison is acceptable or not. I tend to think it isn't acceptable, but I can understand others might have a different view (and that it's not as unacceptable as beatings, torture etc.)

    • Reply
  • Knownowt
    Knownowt ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I agree with Hazel.

    As I've said on BT, I think it's a terrible shame that his appeal will now not go ahead- there are very serious doubts about his conviction which now won't be resolved.

    • Reply
  • B
    Beginner February 2008
    Boop ·
    • Report
    • Hide content
    View quoted message

    I completely agree.

    Although not in the case of Ernest Saunders (the Guinness fraudster) who was released from prison because of 'Alzheimers' but who magically recovered once out.

    • Reply
  • R-A
    Beginner July 2008
    R-A ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    WHS. See Ronnie Biggs et al.

    Compassion is essential in these situations, it's what sets us apart us from those who commit atrocities.

    • Reply
  • Roobarb
    Beginner January 2007
    Roobarb ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    What Boop and Knownowt said. There is a huge question mark over whether he did it anyway. And perhals somewhat flippantly on the plus side, I'm in favour just cos it's p1ssed off the USA/Hillary Clinton ?

    • Reply
  • Mrs Magic
    Beginner May 2007
    Mrs Magic ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I think it's absolutely the right decision. There were far higher cogs at work with the Lockerbie bombing and although he is guilty, it's impossible he acted alone which means justice has never fully been done at all. I'd be very interested to see an inquiry into the fact there was a break in behind the scenes at Heathrow that day and why Margaret Thatcher thought it was a good idea to cover that up.

    Our justice system is one of the best for a reason. The US didn't want the cost and issues of having the trial on US soil therefore they have to accept this decision. I think we should be proud to live in a country where we can trust the right thing will be strived for in most cases.

    An appeal would have been likely to clear his name and perhaps give us more truth on what happened and I'm sad that will be harder now. I do hope the UK families keep pushing for an inquiry. He may well not be there but there is certainly more truth to be found.

    Copied from BT:

    Dr Swire, who became the spokesman for the UK relatives said a few days ago that they supported his release and that it was the right decision. That spoke volumes to me. These people will never see their children, spouses, parents or siblings again and are haunted forever by what they must have endured but to have compassion for the man who was convicted for their deaths, it's really quite amazing.

    That's him just left the prison now. To hecklers in the street.

    ~~

    I don't know why I watch the news. <seethe>

    <paraphrase> "there are bound to be claims that he cancer isn't in as bad a condition as we were being led to believe now we have seen him walk unaided, with just a walking stick."

    He has fcuking terminal cancer. What a bloody horrible thing to say and a kick in the teeth for anyone with cancer. "Oh you can walk? It can't be that bad then."

    • Reply
  • Mrs Magic
    Beginner May 2007
    Mrs Magic ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    Talking of the Clintons, I was amused earlier at a news person picking up on the fact Mr Clinton gave the inquiry to the UK but Mrs Clinton appears to believe the trial should have been in the US.

    He would have almost certainly have been executed had the US held the trial so I am very glad it was held in the UK.

    • Reply
  • Roobarb
    Beginner January 2007
    Roobarb ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    The US paid for the trial though didn't they?

    • Reply
  • Flowery the Grouch
    Beginner December 2007
    Flowery the Grouch ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I agree with Hazel, Mrs M et al.

    I'm also getting increasingly angry at all the comments being made suggesting he got off "scot-free". (mainly on places like BBC HYS - why, oh why do I ever read that?). Because spending 8 years in jail for something you may or maynot have done, and then getting a couple of months to die with your family around you is "scot-free" is it?

    • Reply
  • M
    Beginner
    Mrs JMP ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I should imagine it's more to do with agreements between countries involved, rather than compasionate grounds that he has been released (although that does play a part)

    I do feel he was made a scapegoat for British failings at Heathrow & the UK government being pressured by the US into getting answers, but as it happened on UK soil the US had little power to take control.

    Maybe I've been watching too many episodes of spooks recently, but can see how information is power against countries.

    • Reply
  • AliLindsey
    Beginner November 2009
    AliLindsey ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    Personally I think it's the right decision. As R A said, it's what sets us apart.

    Also why should his family suffer knowing that he's in jail for the last couple of months of his life?

    • Reply
  • Knownowt
    Knownowt ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    Surely the point is that we, as a society, try to set our moral sights higher than those of a terrorist murderer? (putting aside the Q of whether he's guilty)

    • Reply
  • Mrs Magic
    Beginner May 2007
    Mrs Magic ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    The UK families all agree that the compassion should be shown to him though. Yes, he's been convicted of a terrible atrocity but if the man whose daughter died can say that compassion is very much something we should be showing then is there much left to say?

    It is widely thought that he would have been cleared in an appeal. We let him serve is sentence and then go home to die and the US would have executed him. Which justice system would you rather live under? An innocent man may have been executed and the truth never sought as they would have been happy that "justice" had been done unlike the UK families who continued to plead for an appeal/inquiry as they don't believe justice has been achieved at all. There is no choice for me and Kenny McAskill has made the right decision on behalf of the Scottish Government.

    I didn't know that Roobarb, I was just going on BBC commentary,. ?

    • Reply
  • Mrs Magic
    Beginner May 2007
    Mrs Magic ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I can't help but think that David Cameron's statement saying he totally disagrees with the decision is a political "vote for me" move.

    The news is so bloody negative. I'm so annoyed with every reporter on every channel commenting so personally and negatively, what's happened to impartiality? Walking free my arse, he's dying. He's still convicted, that will never change.

    Someone on a clip from a US news show has just said "Scottish people should be ashamed that they have Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government making these decisions" [sigh]

    • Reply
  • Hoobygroovy
    Hoobygroovy ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I thought Kenny MacAskill's speech was eloquent. I would rather be seen as a compassionate country than a vengeful one and I am disappointed that the US seems to confuse compassion with weakness. The weak response would have been to cow-tow to US pressure in the face of our belief of what is right.

    I would have preferred al-Megrahi to have remained healthy and survived to conduct his appeal but, given that he has just weeks to live, I would not deprive his family of the chance to say goodbye. Yes, I know that the victims' families didn't get a chance to do that but I don't believe we should lower ourselves to that 'tit for tat' level of thinking. We are better than that... I hope.

    • Reply
  • Zebra
    Beginner
    Zebra ·
    • Report
    • Hide content
    View quoted message

    He probably also wants to butter up the Yanks in case he ever wins the election.

    • Reply
  • barongreenback
    Beginner September 2004
    barongreenback ·
    • Report
    • Hide content
    View quoted message

    I agree. I think it also helps to think in terms of compassion for his family, rather than al-Megrahi himself. His continued incarceration and ultimate death in custody thousands of miles away punishes them as well.

    Not an easy decision at all and I'm sure it's far easier to look at this objectively when you haven't been directly affected buy it.

    • Reply
  • R-A
    Beginner July 2008
    R-A ·
    • Report
    • Hide content
    View quoted message

    Indeed, that's the point I was trying to make in my first post on this thread.

    • Reply
  • HaloHoney
    Beginner July 2007
    HaloHoney ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I've soap-boxed about this elsewhere today, so forgive me I shall cut and paste...

    I am glad Scotland took a stand and did the dignified thing by letting him go home to die in peace.

    As much as it might hurt the families of those who died (and Lord, I know what it feels like to have the person seemingly responsible for your loved one's death walk free), the "revenge" of withholding the privilege of dying with your family near you will not bring your loved one back, nor honour their memory.

    I would rather be remembered for my compassion and humanity in easing someone's emotional suffering, rather than sitting smugly in my comfortable home to watch someone die alone in a jail cell....

    Two wrongs do not make a right, but I do understand why people feel the way they do. The families who lost someone on that flight suffered a terrible loss that will have left a huge void in their lives. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's family are the ones who will suffer if he were kept in jail, not him. Knowing what I know about losing a loved one, I couldn't inflict that on another family.

    • Reply
  • FigJam
    Beginner
    FigJam ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    Just seen a news report on this and what has really annoyed me is the footage of him landing in Tripoli, so much for the Libyian authorities promising no "hero's" return. Unbelievable, some sods even had saltires being flown. ☹️

    I'm not sure I agree with him being released, yes I see what others are saying about showing we are better than the terrorists, but it just doesn't feel right. My parents know someone who was a police officer called out that night who still lives with the horror of it, never mind the Lockerbie locals and families involved and what they have to deal with.

    • Reply
  • Luthien
    Beginner June 2007
    Luthien ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I can't make up my mind as to how I feel at the moment. I'm glad the decision wasn't mine to make. At the moment I am leaning towards the feeling that he should not have been released, but I by no means feel comfortable with this. This is without taking into consideration the opinion that his conviction may have been unsound.

    I don't think that showing compassion in these situations sets us apart from terrorists. Ensuring that someone sees out their sentence is not comparable to committing an act of terrorism. Knowing that committing such crimes is wrong is what sets us apart.

    I believe that in committing a crime of this nature, you are surrendering your right to freedom. I don't think that imprisoning someone is an act of revenge. Prison sentences should be a deterrent and I think they should be upheld. I'm not sure that the family suffering should be a factor in securing release - responsibility for that lies with the individual who committed the crime.

    Urgh, that sounds more decided than I feel - as I said, I'm very glad that the decision is made by people more learned that me! It will be a long time before I make up my mind on this one.

    • Reply
  • J
    Beginner
    Julz ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I'm pleased that he has been released, I think it's the correct decision. I fail to see what good keeping a dying man in prison would have achieved. I am sad though that his appeal will no longer be held because the more I hear about it the more unsafe his conviction sounds to me. I'm not really a big one for conspiracy theories really, but there always seems to have been many unanswered questions over the events.

    I also think, although not a sole reason for releasing someone in any way, that keeping a dying person in prison with all the care they require seems like quite a waste of money (I'm sure there is a much more eloquent way of putting what I'm trying to say, but it's escaping me at the moment).

    I also don't think from the few clips they've shown on tv his "hero's welcome" was as bad as it could have been. Certainly I think had they been bringing him home after he'd died alone in prison he'd have been treated as much more of a hero, if not some sort of martyr.

    • Reply
  • MissL
    MissL ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    Julz, that is what I was going to say but maybe not as well! If he really was guilty < devil's advocate>, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then why not send him home and let the family / country pay for his care and passing etc as opposed to the UK?

    If he was wrongly convicted, which is certainly possible, then he deserves - and needs to go home - and it is a huge shame his appeal will not be heard but that has got to be a better outcome for his family than him being kept here...

    • Reply
  • Ms. Scarlett
    Beginner April 2007
    Ms. Scarlett ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I do think it's rather unfortunate that he was released on the first day of Ramadan - this will surely give weight to the theory that it was some kind of bargain between governments, even if it's a complete concincidence. I think even if it was some kind of bargain, the argument about compassion still stands.

    • Reply
  • Knownowt
    Knownowt ·
    • Report
    • Hide content
    View quoted message

    I agree with this completely.

    However, I see it the other way round- the fact that we are different to terrorists means that that we should make decisions based on our own moral standards. The question that a few people have asked- "why should we show compassion to him when he didn't show compassion to the people he killed?"- is misguided, IMO. We should decide when to be compassionate according to our own moral code. We don't need to show compassion here in order to differentiate ourselves from terrorists, but the fact we are different means we can do better than tit-for-tat morality.

    Could that be any more garbled? ?

    • Reply
  • P
    Protostar ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I'm glad that he has been released and it was the right thing to do, regardless of how sound or otherwise his conviction was.

    I can understand the anger of some of the families, however. Let's face it, the grim reality is, that a fall from 31,000 feet would not have been a swift death for very many of the 149 who were found to have died from impact injuries as a result of aircraft parts or the ground. It would have been a truly horrifying death for all those not killed instantly in the explosion. If my loved one had been murdered so indiscriminately and suffered in such a manner I would find it VERY hard to forgive. I find it very heartening that even some of those relatives can find it in their heart to support this decision.

    Releasing a dying man to go home to his home country was absolutely the right thing to do. Generally, I am a big supporter of the US but I am very proud of what happened yesterday. I'm glad Scotland got to make the decision as I fear Westminster would have bowed under the pressure from the US.

    • Reply
  • A
    Beginner August 2007
    alison76 ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    I'm thinking along the same lines as Luthien.

    What doesn't sit easy with me is the welcome he was given on returning home - being greeted by Gadaffi's son, the flag waving & cheering etc. He's not a hero, he's a convicted criminal (albeit maybe un-soundly).

    Gadaffi knows who was responsible. With my cynical head on, I wonder what deal was struck with the Libyan government for future trade/oil - is it any coincidence that Mandelson was in Libya very recently?

    But at the same time, to show compassion is good. Whether that then is portrayed as us being weak to those who would seek to cause terrorist attrocities remains to be seen.

    • Reply
  • Lady Vixen
    Beginner February 2007
    Lady Vixen ·
    • Report
    • Hide content

    Thank you for this. It has really helped me to see some sides of the story that I would not have previously considered . I'm still not sure where I stand with this. I was not aware that his conviction was 'shaky' and do not know the full details although my immediate thoughts are that if somebody has been convicted of such an atrocity then they should see out their sentence in it's entirity regardless. I thought the same about Ronnie Biggs.

    Intersting comments about Scotland taking the moral high ground and showing compassion - I agree with these to a degree also.

    The images of the welcome he received in Tripoli seem to me like a kick in the teeth for the families of those lost in the Lockerbie bombing and do not sit well.

    Interesting also to see the different views on here.

    • Reply
  • B
    Beginner February 2008
    Boop ·
    • Report
    • Hide content
    View quoted message

    I agree with this - however consider how much attention his body would have received if he'd died in a Scottish jail. He'd have been treated as a martyr and last night's welcome would pale in comparison.

    • Reply

You voted for . Add a comment 👇

×

General groups

Hitched article topics