News Lockerbie

[old.user4556]

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Bomber 'treated like a celebrity'

Well, it's back in the news again with Megrahi's release imminent.

The Lockerbie disaster is somewhat bizarre for me. You have an international playing field of governments, agendas, intelligence agencies, politics and middle eastern terrorism all focussed on a sleepy Scottish town that I could drive to in about an hour and a half.

I've never really given much of a shit about it for some reason, I was only 8 at the time when it happened, but now i'm older I've been reading through a lot of documentation on the conviction of Megrahi and the evidence surrounding it. Fuck me, am I the only one that thinks they made a right royal fuck up of the proceedings but he got convicted anyway?

1. His lawyers claim that vital documents, which emanate from the CIA and relate to the Mebo timer that allegedly detonated the Lockerbie bomb, were withheld from the trial defence team.[15]
2. Tony Gauci, chief prosecution witness at the trial, is alleged to have been paid $2 million for testifying against Megrahi.[16]
3. Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, has claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya.[17]
4. Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore an affidavit in July 2007 that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to "a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case".[18]

Then as I dug deeper, it turns out that the Maltese shop owner (Tony Gauci) was as reliable as a Trabant at the best of times and also the allegations that the CIA planted the timer fragment all add up to the conviction being pretty unsafe, not to mention Hans Kochler's observations of the farse that was the trial.

Throw in the emotions of the family, and you've got a pretty difficult situation. It seems that there is overwhelming doubt over the conviction which has split the families of the people killed down the middle. Some think he's innocent, some want to believe so badly he did it and want to pin their grief on him to get closure.

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Reaction: Lockerbie bomber 'release'

Maybe we'll never know.

I'm not sure what this post was meant to achieve, maybe some good old fashioned FH arguing .

 

[rynnor]

As the years passed and more information gradually trickled out his conviction just got shakier and shakier - obviously the police had to get someone and a foreigner is always handy so fait accompli.

Its the kind of thing that happens in these situations...

 

[00dave]

I used to work with some guys who were an aircraft recovery team, everyone calls them crash and smash. Some of them were involved with recovering the remains of the aircraft and if you look into the details of the crash its a disturbing account of what happens during a plane crash. In this case the front of the plane was torn off in the explosion (which is what you see in the news footage, and is stored not far from where I live) and plummeted to the ground but left the rest of the plane free to continue minus one engine and with no possible means of controlling it.
Passengers had clothes torn from them due to explosive docompression and would have been fully concious once the remains of the plane lost altitude.
The front section of the aircraft smashed into the ground but there was one survivor who died because medical attention did not reach her in time. pretty horific even for a plane crash.

 

[Zenith.UK]

Whatever the ins and outs of his conviction, he is a sick man with not much time left in front of him. Even if he was indisputably proven to be the murderer he's portrayed to be, compassionate release is the morally just thing to do.
If he was left to rot in his cell, we would be no better than the bombers as we'd lose the moral high ground.
Letting him go under compassionate release shows that his imprisonment was about justice, not retribution or revenge.

Contrast that with the USA where a judge can either sentence someone to death or to 1000 years imprisonment (no hope of getting out in their lifetime). The sentence is not only to protect society but is also punitive, meaning that it is a punishment for the individual.

 

[Lazarus]

Whatever the ins and outs of his conviction, he is a sick man with not much time left in front of him. Even if he was indisputably proven to be the murderer he's portrayed to be, compassionate release is the morally just thing to do.
If he was left to rot in his cell, we would be no better than the bombers as we'd lose the moral high ground.
Letting him go under compassionate release shows that his imprisonment was about justice, not retribution or revenge.

Contrast that with the USA where a judge can either sentence someone to death or to 1000 years imprisonment (no hope of getting out in their lifetime). The sentence is not only to protect society but is also punitive, meaning that it is a punishment for the individual.

all good words, but the bottom line is that he (rightly or wrongly) was convicted of the crime.

 

[DaGaffer]

Contrast that with the USA where a judge can either sentence someone to death or to 1000 years imprisonment (no hope of getting out in their lifetime). The sentence is not only to protect society but is also punitive, meaning that it is a punishment for the individual.

I fail to see the problem with this. The biggest criticism of Europe's penal system from the general public is that "life doesn't mean life". A prison sentence should be about punishment as well as protecting the public.

I don't know enough about this case to say whether his conviction is sound or not, but if its not, put it before a judge, if it is, he can rot as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MYstIC G]

some good old fashioned FH arguing .

You ****.

 

[old.user4556]

You ****.

Poor effort, you need an aids reference.

 

[MYstIC G]

Ah typo. Should have been

"You = ****." where **** = AIDS

 

[Rulke]

Lockerbie Bomber released

So Megrahi has been freed on compassionate grounds. Am I the only one who thinks this was the right thing do to?

 

[MYstIC G]

Yes.

 

[Raven]

I don't think it is the right thing to do. He killed people who had nothing to do with his misguided cause, he should have been left to rot for his cowardly act of terrorism.

That's assuming he did it in the first place, there is some doubt.

 

[MYstIC G]

If he wants to go home his family should reimburse the state (Scotland) for the costs associated with his incarceration and if not those, the costs of moving his ass back to his homeland.

 

[Jiggs]

Doubt about his conviction + imminent death from cancer = right decision.

The Americans didn't have too many qualms about harbouring and funding bona-fide IRA terrorists who bombed the crap out of my home town so I don't have much time for their complaints.

 

[Gwadien]

I think this decision is absolutely shocking - If it was 300 Scottish people dead - then yeah, they he would of rotted in the prison.

He Killed people, He should be killed. End Of.

 

[Tom]

So Megrahi has been freed on compassionate grounds. Am I the only one who thinks this was the right thing do to?

No you're not. Keeping a man who is dying from an incurable disease, detained, is indefensible. I don't care if its Hitler, or a child murderer.

I don't see what is gained by refusing his freedom, apart from the bitter pill that is revenge. Those who would feel happy knowing that he died in pain have more serious problems to deal with IMO.

 

[Lazarus]

Lets not forget the 300+ people blown out of the sky by the bomb he was convicted of planting / arranging to plant.

They did no more than look forward to vacation / business.

to me, he should have died behind bars.

 

[Damini]

Life behind bars should mean life, right up to the full stop. Don't deny him medical care, or pain killers. Do deny him the things that a prisoner should be deprived of - the right to go home, be with his family, and be free, no matter how fleetingly.

 

[ford prefect]

No you're not. Keeping a man who is dying from an incurable disease, detained, is indefensible. I don't care if its Hitler, or a child murderer.

I don't see what is gained by refusing his freedom, apart from the bitter pill that is revenge. Those who would feel happy knowing that he died in pain have more serious problems to deal with IMO.

I agree completely. Alright there is doubt about the conviction too, but reguardless, there is nothing to be gained by keeping a dying man detained. He isn't a danger to anybody and he is dying in one of the most painful and debilitating was possible, why remove what little dignity he has left? who does it benefit?

 

[Trem]

why remove what little dignity he has left? who does it benefit?

Remove it because he murdered people, it benefits the family of the people he murdered if they know he has had his life taken away from him like they have.

Easier way would of been to hang him in the first place.

 

[tris-]

He removed his appeal.
I wonder if perhaps they persuaded him to do this so he looks guilty, in exchange for being released early.

 

[MYstIC G]

to me, he should have died behind bars.

Wrong approach. He should have served his sentence. The fact that nobody does so anymore is the root problem with the current system. No matter what the punishment handed down is, don't worry you won't do 100% of the punishment.

 

[DaGaffer]

Said this in the other thread; if there was doubt about the conviction, re-try him. If not, let him rot. Fuck compassion; if he had any he wouldn't have snuffed 300 lives out over Scotland.

 

[ford prefect]

Remove it because he murdered people, it benefits the family of the people he murdered if they know he has had his life taken away from him like they have.

I don't really see how the family benefits from at all. It doesn't bring back the people they have lost and the whole eye for an eye mentality doesn't make the world a fairer and more just place to be does it? I can't think of one example where that kind of justice has served to improve civilization.

 

[Malecheon]

He removed his appeal.
I wonder if perhaps they persuaded him to do this so he looks guilty, in exchange for being released early.

There was something in the news earlier in the week that said he couldn't be released whilst there was still an open appeal in process, so yes, in a way he has been persuaded to drop it in return for an early release.

 

[Rulke]

Listening to MacAskill talking made me proud to be scottish tbh, listening to that Yank woman the BBC interviewed just made me angry

"Libya is a country with oil..."

Geez, this from an american?

 

[old.user4556]

Ta Big G, merged. MYstIC G

 

[Trem]

I don't really see how the family benefits from at all. It doesn't bring back the people they have lost and the whole eye for an eye mentality doesn't make the world a fairer and more just place to be does it? I can't think of one example where that kind of justice has served to improve civilization.

He......killed.....270.....people!

What the fuck does he care about civilization, did he care about fairness or compassion when he slaughtered all those people? Did he think it was the civil thing to do?

I can't get my head around the thinking that releasing him is the right thing to do. It makes my mind boggle.

I give up.

 

[old.user4556]

I've read up on a lot of the Lockerbie stuff.

Like I said in my OP, it was surreal watching a hotly debated, international event unfold just 40 or so miles from where I was standing, and in an area that I know like the back of my hand.

I don't like what I'm reading on here about he killed 270 odd people, or that he's a murderer - that is very uncertain. What is certain, is that the conviction is very unsafe. The accounts of the courtroom, and the massive gaps in evidence only go to show what a massive miscarriage of justice the Lockerbie conviction was.

The inconsistency of the timer fragment, the allegations of a senior ranking police official that the said timer fragment was planted by the CIA, the shaky evidence given by the Maltese shop owned Toni Gauci who was already known to be unreliable, the fact that Ulrich Lumpert from MEBO swore in an affidavit that he essentially talked a load of bollocks in court about the bomb timer which threw the entire case into a very serious doubt, the fact that a huge chunk of the circumstancial evidence that the unaccompanied baggage that bomb was routed from Malta to Frankfurt was then dismissed by Air Malta as all baggage checked in was "accounted for".

If he wasn't in such an ill way, I would have been down to William Hill to put money on his appeal being heard and his conviction overturned.

 

[old.user4556]

Oh meant to say - this is a great read: The Lockerbie Case