The scotts better be careful or the mighty US will stop sharing intelligence.
shut up ffs
the scotts will retialite and withhold their porridge. yer fucked.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
lulzzzz, its tru.m3thod wrote:
the scotts will retialite and withhold their porridge. yer fucked.
http://www.thebritishshoppe.com/Merchan … 0large.jpg
Cept Ronnie Biggs tried for years, for a crime far less severe, this guy was out in a few weeks.Bertster7 wrote:
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).
He tried to get released as a reward for handing himself in. Not because he was determined to have less than 3 months to live, which I have already mentioned as being the criteria.M.O.A.B wrote:
Cept Ronnie Biggs tried for years, for a crime far less severe, this guy was out in a few weeks.Bertster7 wrote:
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).
It is quite obvious that he didn't only have 3 months to live if he tried for years. When he did get to a stage where the prognosis was that he only had about 3 months to live, he was released.
There's nothing to say that Megrahi will certainly die within three months either. People can be told they have little time left and stay alive for a few years even.Bertster7 wrote:
He tried to get released as a reward for handing himself in. Not because he was determined to have less than 3 months to live, which I have already mentioned as being the criteria.M.O.A.B wrote:
Cept Ronnie Biggs tried for years, for a crime far less severe, this guy was out in a few weeks.Bertster7 wrote:
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.
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).
It is quite obvious that he didn't only have 3 months to live if he tried for years. When he did get to a stage where the prognosis was that he only had about 3 months to live, he was released.
That's what prognosis is. If the doctors say they are very likely to die within 3 months, they are eligible. The doctors reports are the fundamental determining factor (as well as whether they are considered to be a threat to the public).M.O.A.B wrote:
There's nothing to say that Megrahi will certainly die within three months either. People can be told they have little time left and stay alive for a few years even.Bertster7 wrote:
He tried to get released as a reward for handing himself in. Not because he was determined to have less than 3 months to live, which I have already mentioned as being the criteria.M.O.A.B wrote:
Cept Ronnie Biggs tried for years, for a crime far less severe, this guy was out in a few weeks.
It is quite obvious that he didn't only have 3 months to live if he tried for years. When he did get to a stage where the prognosis was that he only had about 3 months to live, he was released.
Still shouldn't have been released.
And I'm still glad he was.M.O.A.B wrote:
Still shouldn't have been released.
It does not change the point that it is standard policy to do this in instances where it is requested and the prisoner has a life expectancy of less than 3 months. A good policy in my opinion.
I don't buy that if you had a family member on that plane you would be saying that. Don't try to convince me, because I just won't believe it.Bertster7 wrote:
And I'm still glad he was.M.O.A.B wrote:
Still shouldn't have been released.
It does not change the point that it is standard policy to do this in instances where it is requested and the prisoner has a life expectancy of less than 3 months. A good policy in my opinion.
Did you know there was a group set up by the families of the British victims that campaigned for his release?Red Forman wrote:
I don't buy that if you had a family member on that plane you would be saying that. Don't try to convince me, because I just won't believe it.Bertster7 wrote:
And I'm still glad he was.M.O.A.B wrote:
Still shouldn't have been released.
It does not change the point that it is standard policy to do this in instances where it is requested and the prisoner has a life expectancy of less than 3 months. A good policy in my opinion.
yes
Massive fuck-up from the Scots.
Pretty abhorrent behaviour from the Libyans.
Reptilian and underhand politics from the British/Scottish government, in regards to potential 'lucrative' benefits.
You don't trade-in your countries own stance on terrorism and sacrifice your legal integrity for a quick-buck oil deal with some militaristic Islamic fucking nut.
Pretty abhorrent behaviour from the Libyans.
Reptilian and underhand politics from the British/Scottish government, in regards to potential 'lucrative' benefits.
You don't trade-in your countries own stance on terrorism and sacrifice your legal integrity for a quick-buck oil deal with some militaristic Islamic fucking nut.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Something I have to ask here.....
I am always told the royal family has no power. They are just window dressing. Well, why did Kadumpy thank the Queen and Prince Andrew?
I am always told the royal family has no power. They are just window dressing. Well, why did Kadumpy thank the Queen and Prince Andrew?
Which I seriously don't understand.Bertster7 wrote:
Did you know there was a group set up by the families of the British victims that campaigned for his release?Red Forman wrote:
I don't buy that if you had a family member on that plane you would be saying that. Don't try to convince me, because I just won't believe it.Bertster7 wrote:
And I'm still glad he was.
It does not change the point that it is standard policy to do this in instances where it is requested and the prisoner has a life expectancy of less than 3 months. A good policy in my opinion.
Libyan propaganda, I guess. That or he was just generally trying to thank the UK as a state, without really knowing what he's talking about.Red Forman wrote:
Something I have to ask here.....
I am always told the royal family has no power. They are just window dressing. Well, why did Kadumpy thank the Queen and Prince Andrew?
The highest person that this release-process probably went to is the top Scottish lawyer/judge, the Attorney-General type.
The Queen, and certainly Prince Andrew, had nothing to do with it at all. Gaddafi stirring the controversy wasp-nest I suppose.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
He was a fall-guy.
he seemed to have no issue with the people who set him up....Doctor Strangelove wrote:
He was a fall-guy.
Well, FBI Director Robert Mueller made his thoughts clear.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.
Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.
And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of "compassion."
Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.
Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion."
Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.
Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases a full career - to see justice done.
But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988.
You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution.
You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification - the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.
You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.
Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to "the need for compassion."
You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.
You have given Megrahi a "jubilant welcome" in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?
Sincerely yours,
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.
Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.
And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of "compassion."
Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.
Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion."
Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.
Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases a full career - to see justice done.
But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988.
You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution.
You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification - the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.
You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.
Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to "the need for compassion."
You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.
You have given Megrahi a "jubilant welcome" in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?
Sincerely yours,
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director
Robert S Mueller is a twat.
Megrahi was prosecuted under scottish law and thats it.
Megrahi was prosecuted under scottish law and thats it.
Fuck Israel
He was charged with the deaths of Americans. Of course we have a right to question how they handled this.Dilbert_X wrote:
Robert S Mueller is a twat.
Megrahi was prosecuted under scottish law and thats it.
I guess when we dish out our perception of law in gitmo against foreigners everyone else should just shut the fuck up then. .. By your logic.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Now wait a minute. Didn't you say in another thread that the opinions of other countries about our healthcare system didn't really matter? This is a trial happening in another country. Even if American lives were involved, doesn't the same logic apply?Kmarion wrote:
He was charged with the deaths of Americans. Of course we have a right to question how they handled this.Dilbert_X wrote:
Robert S Mueller is a twat.
Megrahi was prosecuted under scottish law and thats it.
I guess when we dish out our perception of law in gitmo against foreigners everyone else should just shut the fuck up then. .. By your logic.
This is being handled by the Scottish government, so like the fact that people outside of America can't vote to affect the policies implemented here, we can't affect the policies in Scotland other than through diplomacy. Even then, they call the shots ultimately, not us.
No not at all. Can you really not see the difference in murder and domestic healthcare policy? I think it's rather obvious that when it affects other citizens in such a direct way (ending their lives) there is a difference. Holy hell turq..Turquoise wrote:
Now wait a minute. Didn't you say in another thread that the opinions of other countries about our healthcare system didn't really matter? This is a trial happening in another country. Even if American lives were involved, doesn't the same logic apply?Kmarion wrote:
He was charged with the deaths of Americans. Of course we have a right to question how they handled this.Dilbert_X wrote:
Robert S Mueller is a twat.
Megrahi was prosecuted under scottish law and thats it.
I guess when we dish out our perception of law in gitmo against foreigners everyone else should just shut the fuck up then. .. By your logic.
And some context for my healthcare remark. I said their opinion did not matter in terms of real weight.. as in they aren't voting in our representatives. Nice try bub.
Also, I do not support gitmo. I was using the base as an example of forum hypocrisy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
In practicality, there is no difference. Like the parallel I made, you still have no more power to change the situation involving this suspect than they do to change our healthcare.Kmarion wrote:
No not at all. Can you really not see the difference in murder and domestic healthcare policy? I think it's rather obvious that when it affects other citizens in such a direct way (ending their lives) there is a difference. Holy hell turq...Turquoise wrote:
Now wait a minute. Didn't you say in another thread that the opinions of other countries about our healthcare system didn't really matter? This is a trial happening in another country. Even if American lives were involved, doesn't the same logic apply?Kmarion wrote:
He was charged with the deaths of Americans. Of course we have a right to question how they handled this.
I guess when we dish out our perception of law in gitmo against foreigners everyone else should just shut the fuck up then. .. By your logic.
You might see it as a difference in principle and concepts, but there is no difference in terms of representation.
See above.Kmarion wrote:
And some context for my healthcare remark. I said their opinion did not matter in terms of real weight.. as in they aren't voting in our representatives. Nice try bub.
There's plenty of that... in every direction.Kmarion wrote:
Also, I do not support gitmo. I was using the base as an example of forum hypocrisy.