Man convicted of Lockerbie bombing released
 

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread about this yet. Despite strenuous American objections, Scotland released Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from prison, as he is terminally ill with cancer. Meraghi was the only man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, which killed 270 people on the plane and on the ground.

If Meraghi is indeed the man behind the crime, then this is quite the outrage. But I personally think that the Scottish authorities are releasing an innocent man who suffered one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in a democracy in recent times.

I'm normally not a fan of conspiracy theories, and I'm not one of those people who thinks that the CIA brought down Pan Am 103 or that they let the attack happen. I agree with the general premise that the Lockerbie bombing was an attack by foreign terrorists against the US and the UK, but I don't think that Meraghi had anything to do with it.

The case against him was stunningly weak, even if you accept that all the witnesses were perfectly honest and reliable. Since the trial, it has emerged that most of the prosecution's key witnesses were unreliable, being paid by the US government, or outright lying. It's a crime that this man has been in jail for so long.

Scotland has its own laws. As long as they are following their own laws, I have no issue with them.

I hope you are wrong about Meraghi. Be a travesty to convict and imprison the wrong person. :nope:

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/a...other039s+plea

There's some stuff on it.

There is a lesson here. If Max2147 is correct in his assumptions, and a jury didn't convict the correct person the lesson is; be careful who you associate with.

Just to clarify, there was no jury in the trial. The verdict was handed down by the three judges who presided over the case.

Innocent or not, us mere mortals will never know.

The fact is he was convicted by the judicial system of being responsible (at some level or other) for the deaths of 270 people.

As such he should not have been released.

The only tangible action/message that should be conveyed to serious offenders, and the only thing they will take note of IMO.....is a one of zero tolerance.

I agree, the grounds for releasing him weren't the best. It would have been better if his appeal had been granted and he had gotten a new trial.

But I think it's better to release an innocent man via the wrong means than to keep him in jail.

His release really had little to do with the trial and or the judicial system.

He was released as a 'humanitarian' gesture as he has terminal prostate cancer.

Im also left with a gut feeling that at the root of this is political motivation.

My wife and I have been having an ongoing discussion about this issue over the past few days, its rather fascinating actually.

On one side (mine) is the thinking that the judge did the right thing.
The other side is that a life sentence is just that and that he should've been left in jail to die in jail.

A couple of points to clear a few things up:

1) This is not really a precedent setting decision, this has been done in the Scottish courts for sometime. In fact there is an official terminally ill apeals roll that he was a part of. This just happens to be the highest profile of such cases. Others convicted of less international crimes (maybe not as heinous) have been given reprieve through this system when terminally ill.

2) The man is clearly ill. The medical records have been released, and the illness was confirmed by mutliple doctors, both independant and state ones. Also if there is any doubt look to his debarkation, he needed two guys to help him walk down the stairs and was very clearly in a lot of pain.


I feel the right thing was done by setting him free. See in my mind society should give out punishments for the sake of justice, but definately not for the sake of vengence. I can clearly see the line of vengence forming in the arguments of why he should not have been set free (arguments like he didn't give that chance to his 270 victims). I feel that the terminal illness is justice coming his way and is in fact much worse than jail - he's going to go through several months of intense pain before passing away. In my opinion to have to go through prostate cancer is a much more harsh punishment than anything else we can dish out. I feel that whether or not we kept him in jail he is being served justice, and as such there was no merit for continueing to hold him as it will not serve the cause of justice to continue to do so.

Compounded with the terminal illness is the shadow of doubt on the validity of his conviction. I'm certain that played a part in the decision to let him go, and as it should be.

One would think that the people clamoring for the death penalty for this guy would be happy that he will be dying a painful death in a few months.

He will be dying sooner than he would had he been sentenced to death and the death will be painful enough to satisfy people's desire for vengeance.

A win-win situation... if you are of that mindset. :nope:

I don't like the fact that the guy was tried without a jury. It stinks of a cover up. I'm not a conspiracy nut, I believe we went to the moon!!! I just think that it's strange.

Soomething wasn't right with the trial...I don't deny that Libya did it but I also dno't think this guy had anything to do with the bombing.

The release was political, partly I think to do with the second appeal as it would have required new info to be released, however I think he would be dead before it got off the ground.

Also I can't see why the US and UK are getting upset by how he was welcomed. Did they really think the Libyans wouldn't treat him like a hero, sick or not?

There may be something to this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/...tain_lockerbie

Is this true? I hope there was more to the evidence than this. :nope:

This same shop keeper is reputed to have been paid betwen $1 and $4 million depending on what you read in order to testify against Megrahi

To hell with "evidence" and "facts"...let's just concentrate on boycotting Scottish products as suggested by all those bloggers whose views coincide with everything I believe already :haha:

Instead of Scotch, let's call it "Freedom Water". Replace the Johnnie Walker logo with a spread-wing bald eagle clutching an Arab geezer in its claws. Instead of pleasant inebriation, you experience the warm glow of self-satisfaction.