How about no? We lost way more citizens than anyone else that day. I think we have the right to voice our opinions.m3thod wrote:
Justice has prevailed. Hooray for the UK.
Shut your pie hole america.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmart, I think the reason m3thod says justice has prevailed is because (as you probably saw from a lot of posts) the evidence that this guy orchestrated the bombing was shady.
I was referring to the shut the pie hole remark. I have also stated twice that if he was in fact guilty then he should not be released. He isn't being released because the verdict was overturned. Merging the end result because he did not finish out his sentence is not vindication of his innocence in a court of law.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Kmart, I think the reason m3thod says justice has prevailed is because (as you probably saw from a lot of posts) the evidence that this guy orchestrated the bombing was shady.
wow Hillary, zzzz
Barack Obama: Lockerbie bomber should die in Scottish jail
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Personally, I'm glad he ws released because I have serious doubts that he did it.Kmarion wrote:
I know capital punishment was never an option based on where he was tried. Still, "If he is responsible fuckem. He got his dose of compassion when he wasn't executed years ago."Bertster7 wrote:
Executed? After being tried in a British court (even if the trial was held at a US airforce base, it was considered Sottish territory for purposes of the trial)? Not likely.Kmarion wrote:
If he is responsible fuckem. He got his dose of compassion when he wasn't executed years ago.
The fact is that the evidence against him was always exceptionally shaky. Had all the facts been available to the jury it is highly unlikely he would ever have been convicted. The Heathrow break in (the baggage area for the plane was broken into the night before the bombing, which many consider a far more plausible place for the bomb to have been placed on the plane than in Malta) revelations cast a lot of doubt over what was a fairly flimsy case to begin with.
Some of the victims families are suing the courts over the prosecution and the alleged cover up.
But even if he was responsible, I still can't say I would disapprove of this. The world would be a much better place if more governments acted like this. Releasing a dying man who presents no threat to anyone so he can spend his last days in his home country with his family is something I find it hard to condemn under any circumstances and to do so purely on compassionate grounds is something I think is quite commendable. I am usually a big critic of the Scottish Parliament, but not today. The world needs more acts of compassion, not less - no matter what the circumstances. This sort of act is very much in line with the thinking that the purpose of prison is to deter, reform and protect the community - not to punish, which I approve of very much.
It may be cultural differences, that make us perceive this issue so differently - it certainly seems that way, since most of the families of the British dead were appealing for his release - whereas there American counterparts seemed horrified by the very idea of it.
Of course it is perfectly possible that this was in fact motivated by some sort of commercial interests - I would be disappointed if that did turn out to be the case.
Commercial interests? In what way?
I do agree though, it does show some sense of decency and moral superiority over the rest of the world to do something like that. I can't really think of many countries that would do something as what Scotland has done today.
Although you would counter that by saying the majority of the world would probably see such a gesture as a sign of weakness
I do agree though, it does show some sense of decency and moral superiority over the rest of the world to do something like that. I can't really think of many countries that would do something as what Scotland has done today.
Although you would counter that by saying the majority of the world would probably see such a gesture as a sign of weakness
Christ, that was like drawing teeth.......Kmarion wrote:
I was referring to the shut the pie hole remark. I have also stated twice that if he was in fact guilty then he should not be released. He isn't being released because the verdict was overturned. Merging the end result because he did not finish out his sentence is not vindication of his innocence in a court of law.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Kmart, I think the reason m3thod says justice has prevailed is because (as you probably saw from a lot of posts) the evidence that this guy orchestrated the bombing was shady.
wow Hillary, zzzz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6tg8ceD2Ws&fmt=
Barack Obama: Lockerbie bomber should die in Scottish jail
There is certainly more than compassion going on here, theres no way Edinburgh sanctioned this on there own, London must have been involved
The only people who call being nice a sign of weakness are pricks.Mekstizzle wrote:
Commercial interests? In what way?
I do agree though, it does show some sense of decency and moral superiority over the rest of the world to do something like that. I can't really think of many countries that would do something as what Scotland has done today.
Although you would counter that by saying the majority of the world would probably see such a gesture as a sign of weakness
As for commercial interests, I'm not sure, but they were saying something about it on the Today program this morning and on PM this afternoon.
He was released!? What the fuck is this!? Punkbuster!?
I agree, and I read this on the BBC, shines a different light on religion and more specifically Christianity and the UK/Scotland:Bertster7 wrote:
The only people who call being nice a sign of weakness are pricks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8212285.stmREV IAN GALLOWAY, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND wrote:
Mr Galloway said the decision "sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish", and predicted it would be a "defining moment for all of us".
He said: "We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not chose mercy?
"This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful.
"I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims' families and I respect their views, but to them, I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy.
Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge."
---
Like others have said it's interesting to note that alot of the British Victims families talk about how they don't entirely believe it was him that did it, and that they want the truth to be told etc.. wheras the Americans seem content with acknowledging that it was him and just continue living on as if everything is all well and good and justice has prevailed. It highlights the very different mindsets within British and American people, IMO.
Even on this forum, it's the Americans who want to throw away the key for this man as quick as possible and just close the book and forget about it all whereas it's mostly others who are looking for more clarification
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-08-20 12:04:03)
wonder if he follows islam
I have to agree to disagree. .. with regard to releasing him even if he was responsible for the murder of hundreds. Circumstances matter to me. Mass murder should be punished. I believe actions should have consequences.Bertster7 wrote:
Personally, I'm glad he ws released because I have serious doubts that he did it.Kmarion wrote:
I know capital punishment was never an option based on where he was tried. Still, "If he is responsible fuckem. He got his dose of compassion when he wasn't executed years ago."Bertster7 wrote:
Executed? After being tried in a British court (even if the trial was held at a US airforce base, it was considered Sottish territory for purposes of the trial)? Not likely.
The fact is that the evidence against him was always exceptionally shaky. Had all the facts been available to the jury it is highly unlikely he would ever have been convicted. The Heathrow break in (the baggage area for the plane was broken into the night before the bombing, which many consider a far more plausible place for the bomb to have been placed on the plane than in Malta) revelations cast a lot of doubt over what was a fairly flimsy case to begin with.
Some of the victims families are suing the courts over the prosecution and the alleged cover up.
But even if he was responsible, I still can't say I would disapprove of this. The world would be a much better place if more governments acted like this. Releasing a dying man who presents no threat to anyone so he can spend his last days in his home country with his family is something I find it hard to condemn under any circumstances and to do so purely on compassionate grounds is something I think is quite commendable. I am usually a big critic of the Scottish Parliament, but not today. The world needs more acts of compassion, not less - no matter what the circumstances. This sort of act is very much in line with the thinking that the purpose of prison is to deter, reform and protect the community - not to punish, which I approve of very much.
It may be cultural differences, that make us perceive this issue so differently - it certainly seems that way, since most of the families of the British dead were appealing for his release - whereas there American counterparts seemed horrified by the very idea of it.
Of course it is perfectly possible that this was in fact motivated by some sort of commercial interests - I would be disappointed if that did turn out to be the case.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Personal opinion: should have rotted in jail. A sentence is a sentence. Commit a crime, do the time. What exactly does 'life sentence' mean otherwise?
To get off lightly these days it would seem.CameronPoe wrote:
Personal opinion: should have rotted in jail. A sentence is a sentence. Commit a crime, do the time. What exactly does 'life sentence' mean otherwise?
I seriously doubt the guy is going to care about proving himself innocent now, he's home (to a hero's welcome no less) and unlikely to be put into a jail.
Makes you wonder as well, all of this happened within a few weeks. Ronnie Biggs, whose crime was far less severe than the Lockerbie bombing, tried for years to be released because of his rapidly deteriorating health and only just was, and even that was into a nursing home. I think this was done solely for political reasons since the old Colonel is pushing into the good books.
He never admitted any crime, the evidence against him was feeble at best.
If he'd been healthy no doubt he would have continued his appeals.
Its a mess overall, no winners here.
If he'd been healthy no doubt he would have continued his appeals.
Its a mess overall, no winners here.
Fuck Israel
Not what his lawyer says....M.O.A.B wrote:
To get off lightly these days it would seem.CameronPoe wrote:
Personal opinion: should have rotted in jail. A sentence is a sentence. Commit a crime, do the time. What exactly does 'life sentence' mean otherwise?
I seriously doubt the guy is going to care about proving himself innocent now, he's home (to a hero's welcome no less) and unlikely to be put into a jail.
Apparently in Britannia it means as long as you kill enough people and get a terminal disease, they'll let you go.CameronPoe wrote:
Personal opinion: should have rotted in jail. A sentence is a sentence. Commit a crime, do the time. What exactly does 'life sentence' mean otherwise?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
In Scotland it is standard policy. If you have less than 3 months to live then you get released, provided you are not considered to present a risk to the public.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Apparently in Britannia it means as long as you kill enough people and get a terminal disease, they'll let you go.CameronPoe wrote:
Personal opinion: should have rotted in jail. A sentence is a sentence. Commit a crime, do the time. What exactly does 'life sentence' mean otherwise?
Regardless of whether he was innocent or not, and regardless of how he's perceived in Libya (I bet they perceive him as a man innocently jailed, despite the fact that it was also Libyas fault that he was jailed, typical stupidness) the hero's welcome he received in Libya was messed up. But there's not much you can do about that, it was bound to happen. It was a long shot expecting them to actually listen to anyone and just keep it all low key. Cocks!
The injustice system strikes again. You know they have brain scans that can tell if people are lieing and they are damn near 100% correct. But I guess that would be to cost effective and effiecent in a world where Politicians are Lawyers and Lawyers get money from an out-dated, unjust, convoluted court system.
I fucking hate this goofy ran by idiots and liberals world we live in. fuck you all, you are all stupid.
I fucking hate this goofy ran by idiots and liberals world we live in. fuck you all, you are all stupid.
Heroes welcome.
the were told specfically not to do this. Worthless fucking dogs.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Have they released anyone else who is about to die? I heard that on average 60 inmates a year die of natural causes behind bars in Scotland.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I believe the figures you're citing are for the UK as a whole.Kmarion wrote:
Have they released anyone else who is about to die? I heard that on average 60 inmates a year die of natural causes behind bars in Scotland.
Since 2000 there have been 30 applications for compassionate release to the Scottish government. 23 have been granted, 7 denied.The Times wrote:
Each year between 60 and 100 criminals die of natural causes while still serving prisoners in the UK.
In England and Wales there have also been a few high profile releases on compassionate grounds. Reggie Kray and Ronnie Biggs being prime examples.
I think it's a very proper and civilised way of doing things.
Not like in Libya, where the welcome he has received is quite disgraceful (if he did it - if not they are celebrating the release of a wrongfully convicted man, which is fine - but you've got to take perceptions into account too).
some of you are as retarded as scotland right now. if he was innocent, then why not say he was innocent? not released because he has cancer? fucking losers. stupid fucking scotts.