Megrahi in coma

[bighairyfaeleith]

Apparently,

Does this mean he should not be sent back to scotland?

Or should he still return to jail?

[easty]

Apparently,

Does this mean he should not be sent back to scotland?

Or should he still return to jail?

Still send him back! :devil:

[greenlex]

Are they sure it's not just a deep sleep? You know what doctors are like.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Quite ironic if he dies on 21st December.

[Woody1985]

It was reported on the news tonight that he was fine.

[easty]

Quite ironic if he dies on 21st December.

Only ironic if he dies on a plane or something.....irony is an overused term.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Only ironic if he dies on a plane or something.....irony is an overused term.

disagree, don't think him dying on something would be ironic at all:greengrin

[steakbake]

Is this not a Morrissey song?

Megrahi in a coma, I know, I know.. this time it's serious....

[Sir David Gray]

Surely he died ages ago. :confused:

I'm sure I heard Kenny MacAskill say that he was released solely on the basis that he was going to die within three months. I make that sixteen months now since he was released...:rolleyes:

[Removed]

Surely he died ages ago. :confused:

I'm sure I heard Kenny MacAskill say that he was released solely on the basis that he was going to die within three months. I make that sixteen months now since he was released...:rolleyes:

Someone should be sacked :agree: or at least be asked to consider their position.

[CropleyWasGod]

It was reported on the news tonight that he was fine.

He's actually in Lake Como.

[--------]

Surely he died ages ago. :confused:

I'm sure I heard Kenny MacAskill say that he was released solely on the basis that he was going to die within three months. I make that sixteen months now since he was released...:rolleyes:


Someone should be sacked :agree: or at least be asked to consider their position.


He should only have been released after a binding agreement with the Libyan government that if he lived longer than the three months his doctors forecast he would be renditioned to the US and shot in the back of the head....

:grr:

Only then would Freedom, Justice, and the American Way be preserved in our generation.

[Removed]

And some would also want to shoot the justice minister as well

[AK86]

Am i the only one on here who thinks the guy was probably innocent?

The case was riddled with holes. The whole prosecution case was that him and the other gadgie were in cahoots and done it together. But one was sent free and the others locked up?:confused:

[--------]

Am i the only one on here who thinks the guy was probably innocent?

The case was riddled with holes. The whole prosecution case was that him and the other gadgie were in cahoots and done it together. But one was sent free and the others locked up?:confused:


No, you aren't - the conviction was almost certainly what in law is termed 'unsafe', which refers either to the quality of the evidence, or the quality of the police work, or the circumstances under which the judges arrived at their verdict, or any two of the above, or all three of the above.

The evidence against him (mostly gathered by American Intelligence) has a whole lot of question-marks against it, and many of those questions relate to the methods employed and the lines of investigation followed (and perhaps more importantly those ignored) by the police and intelligence operatives employed on the case. And that the judges were under huge pressure to bring in the 'right' verdict seems to me to be unquestionable.

The Americans wanted a scapegoat, and the scapegoat had to be politically acceptable to them. The question of real guilt or innocence really didn't matter to them.

Al-Megrahi had an appeal pending. What might have come out in the course of that appeal, of course, we'll now never know.

However, it seems clear to me that the UK government (Jack Straw and his pals who allegedly knew nothing whatever about the business and who therefore allegedly exerted no influence whatsoever over the proceedings) were very keen indeed not to have him die in a British gaol. (Something to do with oil and construction contracts, perhaps?) By dumping the responsibility on Holyrood and on the Scottish government, they could placate Libya while still remaining friends with Washington - God forbid any damage should be done to the 'special relationship', after all.

The Americans in turn were happy enough to have him released - they could stay pals with Westminster while yelling loudly at Holyrood in general and Ken McAskill in particular - loudly enough to satisfy their constituents back in the US of A and loudly enough to give them a defence strategy against their critics in Washington. And they could get their cut of the Libyan contracts without attracting too much attention..

And of course, once he was back in Libya, Al-Megrahi and his lawyers dropped the appeal and kept quiet about whatever it was they had intended to build the appeal around....

If only Al-Megrahi had had the decency to drop off the twig a few months ago, all would now be forgotten. It all goes to show, you can't trust those Libyans.

[lyonhibs]

I wish he'd hurry up and croak.

Then, you know, all these outraged moralistas that have been lusting after the death of an ill man might take 30 seconds to look at all the vagaries and question marks that remain over his conviction in the 1st place.

[Alec Splode]

I wish he'd hurry up and croak.

Then, you know, all these outraged moralistas that have been lusting after the death of an ill man might take 30 seconds to look at all the vagaries and question marks that remain over his conviction in the 1st place.

His death won't elucidate any of the eye-for-an-eye brigade.
Hope he hangs in there...(not literally of course)

[lyonhibs]

His death won't elucidate any of the eye-for-an-eye brigade.
Hope he hangs in there...(not literally of course)

I know :agree:

Doddie's post sums it up for me. I find this wanton "oooohh we were told he had 3 months, why isn't he deid yet" angle a tad distasteful, in all honestly.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I know :agree:

Doddie's post sums it up for me. I find this wanton "oooohh we were told he had 3 months, why isn't he deid yet" angle a tad distasteful, in all honestly.

:agree:

By that "logic", surely it is a good thing that Megrahi has lived longer, because that means he has been made to suffer more.

:rolleyes:

[Woody1985]

My thoughts are that he was involved but was a small cog in a big machine.

[ancienthibby]

:agree:

By that "logic", surely it is a good thing that Megrahi has lived longer, because that means he has been made to suffer more.

:rolleyes:

Whatever the circumstances, rights and wrongs of the conviction, etc, why would you wish for another human being to suffer more??

Would you moderate your view, if I told you that I was given 'an Al Megrahi' diagnosis before he was?? (Which is the case!)

[lapsedhibee]

Whatever the circumstances, rights and wrongs of the conviction, etc, why would you wish for another human being to suffer more??

Would you moderate your view, if I told you that I was given 'an Al Megrahi' diagnosis before he was?? (Which is the case!)

Shirley PTS is making a point of logic, not giving his view? :confused:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Shirley PTS is making a point of logic, not giving his view? :confused:

:agree:

[Prof. Shaggy]

My thoughts are that he was involved but was a small cog in a big machine.

My thoughts are that he wasn't involved.

Not even remotely...

[Sir David Gray]

Someone should be sacked :agree: or at least be asked to consider their position.

Kenny MacAskill should certainly have been sacked after releasing Megrahi, he shouldn't have even been allowed the time to consider his position after making such a shocking decision.


:agree:

By that "logic", surely it is a good thing that Megrahi has lived longer, because that means he has been made to suffer more.

:rolleyes:

First of all, I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, not even a convicted mass murderer, but the fact that he currently has the disease shouldn't have meant that he could get released after serving just 8 1/2 years of a life sentence for murdering 270 people. That's less than two weeks served for every person who lost their life that day.

Personally, I find that despicable.

The fact that he has already lived far longer than all the medical experts had claimed he would, just adds insult to injury as far as I'm concerned.

I don't find it relevant when people say his release on compassionate grounds was justified because they regard his original conviction as unsafe. The fact is, he was found guilty of being behind the Lockerbie bombing, it's not something that even MacAskill was questioning when he decided to release him last year.

As he was found guilty of being behind the single worst atrocity on British soil in living memory, he should either have spent the rest of his days in a Scottish prison or else he should have been given a retrial and if that had found him not guilty (as so many on here are sure that it would have done) then he would then have been released and allowed to return to Libya.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Kenny MacAskill should certainly have been sacked after releasing Megrahi, he shouldn't have even been allowed the time to consider his position after making such a shocking decision.



First of all, I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, not even a convicted mass murderer, but the fact that he currently has the disease shouldn't have meant that he could get released after serving just 8 1/2 years of a life sentence for murdering 270 people. That's less than two weeks served for every person who lost their life that day.

Personally, I find that despicable.

The fact that he has already lived far longer than all the medical experts had claimed he would, just adds insult to injury as far as I'm concerned.

I don't find it relevant when people say his release on compassionate grounds was justified because they regard his original conviction as unsafe. The fact is, he was found guilty of being behind the Lockerbie bombing, it's not something that even MacAskill was questioning when he decided to release him last year.

As he was found guilty of being behind the single worst atrocity on British soil in living memory, he should either have spent the rest of his days in a Scottish prison or else he should have been given a retrial and if that had found him not guilty (as so many on here are sure that it would have done) then he would then have been released and allowed to return to Libya.

I think the point however is that he probably would not have lived long enough to go through with the re-trial. For once scotland did the right thing, showed some compassion and let a dying man go home to his family to die.

He is no longer a risk to anyone and keeping him in the cell until he actually dies was going to achieve diddly squat except possibly attracting the attention of lots of extremists that we don't need or want.

Let the US and England **** about with other peoples business and lets keep conducting our own with dignity.

[lapsedhibee]

the fact that he currently has the disease shouldn't have meant that he could get released after serving just 8 1/2 years of a life sentence for murdering 270 people. That's less than two weeks served for every person who lost their life that day.

Personally, I find that despicable.


Supposing he'd been killed by another inmate after he'd served only 270 days. That would be only one day served for each death. Would that have satisfied you better, or been even more despicable? :dunno:

[Pretty Boy]

I think the point however is that he probably would not have lived long enough to go through with the re-trial. For once scotland did the right thing, showed some compassion and let a dying man go home to his family to die.

He is no longer a risk to anyone and keeping him in the cell until he actually dies was going to achieve diddly squat except possibly attracting the attention of lots of extremists that we don't need or want.

Let the US and England **** about with other peoples business and lets keep conducting our own with dignity.

This is the key point for me. Releasing a dying man with terminal cancer WAS the right thing to do, even if it was done for the wrong reasons.

Of course the fact he is still alive after 16 months will cause moral outrage and much gnashing of teeth amongst certain moral crusaders but cancer is a notoriously hard illness to predict and i'm sure this has been a genuine miscalculation by doctors as opposed to anything more sinister.

[khib70]

I wish he'd hurry up and croak.

Then, you know, all these outraged moralistas that have been lusting after the death of an ill man might take 30 seconds to look at all the vagaries and question marks that remain over his conviction in the 1st place.
Yeah, imagine getting outraged over 270 murders! Some people just go right over the top.

The guy was convicted in a Scottish court. Everything else amounts to the same old boring conspiracy theories and anti-American paranoia. I have no doubt about his guilt, and am completely indifferent to his fate. But clearly he was released on inadequate medical evidence to suit some economic or political agenda.

Some show of concern for the victims on here would be a breath of fresh air.

[Pretty Boy]

Yeah, imagine getting outraged over 270 murders! Some people just go right over the top.

The guy was convicted in a Scottish court. Everything else amounts to the same old boring conspiracy theories and anti-American paranoia. I have no doubt about his guilt, and am completely indifferent to his fate. But clearly he was released on inadequate medical evidence to suit some economic or political agenda.

Some show of concern for the victims on here would be a breath of fresh air.

Surely if others believe the conviction is unsafe or just plain wrong then wishing to see an innocent man free and the real perpotrators brought to justice is showing concern for the victims?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yeah, imagine getting outraged over 270 murders! Some people just go right over the top.

The guy was convicted in a Scottish court. Everything else amounts to the same old boring conspiracy theories and anti-American paranoia. I have no doubt about his guilt, and am completely indifferent to his fate. But clearly he was released on inadequate medical evidence to suit some economic or political agenda.

Some show of concern for the victims on here would be a breath of fresh air.

Given that the father of one of the victims, Jim Swire, has his doubts about the safety of the conviction, I think it's a bit trite to lump all the victims together.

It's not a simple case. My thoughts are that outrage can blind us to reason, and if people didn't question the actions of people like Secret Service agents, then they might well miss an important lesson for the future.

[khib70]

Surely if others believe the conviction is unsafe or just plain wrong then wishing to see an innocent man free and the real perpotrators brought to justice is showing concern for the victims?
Fair enough if that were true. But I think those who believe Megrahi to be innocent are driven by their political agenda. (as they are in the Julian Assange case). This is evident from the anti-American statements which pepper this thread. The only Americans proven to be involved in this case were the victims.

I think Megrahi is guilty, but was only part of an operation which goes back to the loathsome Gadaffi and the Libyan state, which has been behind numerous similar atrocities. I wouldn't wish a painful death on anyone whatever they have done, but I've no time for people talking about "compassion" when they are really pursuing a political agenda.

I now expect to be showered with the contents of various conspiracy theory websites, and crackpot theories about how the CIA really did it all, along with 9/11, and the Israelis are probably behind it too.

[Pretty Boy]

Fair enough if that were true. But I think those who believe Megrahi to be innocent are driven by their political agenda. (as they are in the Julian Assange case). This is evident from the anti-American statements which pepper this thread. The only Americans proven to be involved in this case were the victims.

I think Megrahi is guilty, but was only part of an operation which goes back to the loathsome Gadaffi and the Libyan state, which has been behind numerous similar atrocities. I wouldn't wish a painful death on anyone whatever they have done, but I've no time for people talking about "compassion" when they are really pursuing a political agenda.

I now expect to be showered with the contents of various conspiracy theory websites, and crackpot theories about how the CIA really did it all, along with 9/11, and the Israelis are probably behind it too.

To be perfectly honest i know nowhere near enough about the case to make a decision on whether Megrahi is guilty or otherwise. Considering the political controversies and the length of time it actually took to set up a trial deemed acceptable to all sides and the format which that trial followed means that i would say there are very few people who can truly be satisfied that the right, or wrong, decision was made. As FR has stated above there are many amongst the families of victims who remain to be convinced of Megrahis' guilt, or at least that he was the sole player.

Of course there are those who will use the case as a tool to beat the USA. The foreign policy of the USA throughout history but particularly since the 1980s is one of the most politically divisive issues worth debating IMO. I would certainly worry if people were in anyway using the case to defend the actions of the Libyan state over the years however, although i have seen no evidence of that on this thread.

As for the compassion argument, i can only speak for myself but i suppiorted the release purely on grounds of compassion. In the job i am currently doing i see people with terminal illnesses and their families everyday and i wouldn't wish that on anyone, i firmly believe that the decision to allow a man with cancer to die with his family was and still is the right thing to do. That doesn't lessen my sympathy for the families of the victims one bit.

[Removed]

Kenny MacAskill should certainly have been sacked after releasing Megrahi, he shouldn't have even been allowed the time to consider his position after making such a shocking decision.


I was actually being facetious with my post you quoted. I missed the smiley.

Do you have trouble undrstanding or accepting the legal concept of compassion? At the end of the day the seeds of this decision were sown not in 2008 when Al-Megrahi received his cancer diagnosis, but much earlier, in 1999, when the Lockerbie trial was conceived with the compromise reached that Megrahi would be tried under Scottish Law in a makeshift court in the Netherlands on a US Air Force base.

The fact that he’s still alive now and not in jail in Scotland is due to the imprecise nature of medical prognosis, and certainly not to be blamed on Kenny MacAskill, who is no more qualified to project life expectancy than you or I.

Many people make the point that Megrahi showed no compassion for his victims over Lockerbie. Well, the legal concept of compassion is something that exists in Scottish law as a concept with many legal precedents, and should therefore be applied in this case, in just the same way as it has been previously.

There can be no rational observer who sees the Lockerbie atrocity for anything other than a heinous and brutal crime. But the legal system of a developed and rational society is in place to remove emotion from exactly this sort of decision. Kenny MacAskill considered Megrahi’s case on its individual merits, and on the basis of the independant medical evidence presented to him. He then applied the law.</p>

The fact that Megrahi is still alive is not kenny MacAskill's fault.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Kenny MacAskill should certainly have been sacked after releasing Megrahi, he shouldn't have even been allowed the time to consider his position after making such a shocking decision.





thats what bawheid iain gray would want as well, infact, he would like to see everyone from the SNP sacked :rolleyes:

[Sir David Gray]

I was actually being facetious with my post you quoted. I missed the smiley.

Do you have trouble undrstanding or accepting the legal concept of compassion? At the end of the day the seeds of this decision were sown not in 2008 when Al-Megrahi received his cancer diagnosis, but much earlier, in 1999, when the Lockerbie trial was conceived with the compromise reached that Megrahi would be tried under Scottish Law in a makeshift court in the Netherlands on a US Air Force base.

The fact that he’s still alive now and not in jail in Scotland is due to the imprecise nature of medical prognosis, and certainly not to be blamed on Kenny MacAskill, who is no more qualified to project life expectancy than you or I.

Many people make the point that Megrahi showed no compassion for his victims over Lockerbie. Well, the legal concept of compassion is something that exists in Scottish law as a concept with many legal precedents, and should therefore be applied in this case, in just the same way as it has been previously.

There can be no rational observer who sees the Lockerbie atrocity for anything other than a heinous and brutal crime. But the legal system of a developed and rational society is in place to remove emotion from exactly this sort of decision. Kenny MacAskill considered Megrahi’s case on its individual merits, and on the basis of the independant medical evidence presented to him. He then applied the law.</p>

The fact that Megrahi is still alive is not kenny MacAskill's fault.

I know it's not his fault that Megrahi's still alive and I also know that MacAskill was going on the advice of others as to Megrahi's life expectancy.

However, I would have considered this decision to be wrong, even supposing Megrahi had died sooner than three months after his release. I'm not criticising the decision to release him because he's still alive well over a year after his release, I'm saying that fact merely adds insult to injury.

I understand the legal aspect of compassion in Scots Law and, in some cases, particularly those of a non-violent nature, I think it's good that we can release people from prison on compassionate grounds when they are suffering from a terminal illness.

In my opinion, that should not apply to someone who has been convicted of murdering 270 people. I thought it was wrong 16 months ago when the decision was first announced and I still think it was wrong today. The fact that Megrahi is still alive makes little difference to how I feel about the whole thing.

It's as plain and as simple as that.


I think the point however is that he probably would not have lived long enough to go through with the re-trial. For once scotland did the right thing, showed some compassion and let a dying man go home to his family to die.

He is no longer a risk to anyone and keeping him in the cell until he actually dies was going to achieve diddly squat except possibly attracting the attention of lots of extremists that we don't need or want.

Let the US and England **** about with other peoples business and lets keep conducting our own with dignity.

This country is not going to be any less of a target for Islamic terrorist groups, now that we've released Megrahi, than we were before his release.

If nothing else, all it's done is annoy one of our strongest allies, who were greatly affected by the Lockerbie bombing and who lost 190 of its citizens that day.

No doubt though that, for some, annoying the Americans will be an added bonus.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I know it's not his fault that Megrahi's still alive and I also know that MacAskill was going on the advice of others as to Megrahi's life expectancy.

However, I would have considered this decision to be wrong, even supposing Megrahi had died sooner than three months after his release. I'm not criticising the decision to release him because he's still alive well over a year after his release, I'm saying that fact merely adds insult to injury.

I understand the legal aspect of compassion in Scots Law and, in some cases, particularly those of a non-violent nature, I think it's good that we can release people from prison on compassionate grounds when they are suffering from a terminal illness.

In my opinion, that should not apply to someone who has been convicted of murdering 270 people. I thought it was wrong 16 months ago when the decision was first announced and I still think it was wrong today. The fact that Megrahi is still alive makes little difference to how I feel about the whole thing.

It's as plain and as simple as that.



This country is not going to be any less of a target for Islamic terrorist groups, now that we've released Megrahi, than we were before his release.

If nothing else, all it's done is annoy one of our strongest allies, who were greatly affected by the Lockerbie bombing and who lost 190 of its citizens that day.

No doubt though that, for some, annoying the Americans will be an added bonus.

whether you approve of them or not (not sure of your position), the wikileaks things have shown that scotland was literally just doing as it was told, BY westminster. america even said stuff privately that they pretty much understood why it was deemed necessary (N.B. i'm not saying here that i think it was, just what america and westminster thought). i'd imagine that they weren't given much choice on the matter. i'd also imagine that if releasing magrahi had been his decision, macaskill would have been eptied by now just so the scottish govt. could save some face.

surely, no matter how strongly you felt about it before, you need to reevaluate you're stance on macaskill's culpability?


(also N.B. - i'm not particularly wild about the SNP, just trying to be a bit objective)

[bighairyfaeleith]

I know it's not his fault that Megrahi's still alive and I also know that MacAskill was going on the advice of others as to Megrahi's life expectancy.

However, I would have considered this decision to be wrong, even supposing Megrahi had died sooner than three months after his release. I'm not criticising the decision to release him because he's still alive well over a year after his release, I'm saying that fact merely adds insult to injury.

I understand the legal aspect of compassion in Scots Law and, in some cases, particularly those of a non-violent nature, I think it's good that we can release people from prison on compassionate grounds when they are suffering from a terminal illness.

In my opinion, that should not apply to someone who has been convicted of murdering 270 people. I thought it was wrong 16 months ago when the decision was first announced and I still think it was wrong today. The fact that Megrahi is still alive makes little difference to how I feel about the whole thing.

It's as plain and as simple as that.



This country is not going to be any less of a target for Islamic terrorist groups, now that we've released Megrahi, than we were before his release.

If nothing else, all it's done is annoy one of our strongest allies, who were greatly affected by the Lockerbie bombing and who lost 190 of its citizens that day.

No doubt though that, for some, annoying the Americans will be an added bonus.

TBH It wasn't a bonus before the decision was made, but given the americans behaviour since it has certainly become one, there attempts to interfere in our political and judicial processes has really annoyed me, it's bad enough having england stick there fingers on our affairs never mind america thinking they can do the same.

The bottom line though is we done the right thing, morally and legally.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Maybe a bit biased, but the longer people with prostate cancer live, the happier I am.

[RyeSloan]

Fair enough if that were true. But I think those who believe Megrahi to be innocent are driven by their political agenda. (as they are in the Julian Assange case). This is evident from the anti-American statements which pepper this thread. The only Americans proven to be involved in this case were the victims.

I think Megrahi is guilty, but was only part of an operation which goes back to the loathsome Gadaffi and the Libyan state, which has been behind numerous similar atrocities. I wouldn't wish a painful death on anyone whatever they have done, but I've no time for people talking about "compassion" when they are really pursuing a political agenda.

I now expect to be showered with the contents of various conspiracy theory websites, and crackpot theories about how the CIA really did it all, along with 9/11, and the Israelis are probably behind it too.


Have your read anything to do with Megrahi's case and his conviction?

If you have I would be delighted to know how the serious doubts over his convictions are driven by a political agenda. It is clear to me and a hell of a lot of people that the conviction is unsafe...that's based on the 'facts' of his conviction and bugger all to do with politics.

What is to do with politics is his release. Allegedly on compasionate grounds this was timed perfectly to ensure his appeal was dropped. Again it's clear to most that Megrahi was very very likely to win an appeal, which would of course cast doubt over the whole saga and Libya's invovlement. Since Libya's admmission to involvement and the subsequent leveraging of this to facilitate their 'rehabilitation' back into normal international relations would also then be shown to be suspect at best. This was the real pressure for him to be set free and thus allow for the UK, USA and Libya to escape the scrutiny a succesful appeal would have brought.

[AK86]

Yeah, imagine getting outraged over 270 murders! Some people just go right over the top.

The guy was convicted in a Scottish court. Everything else amounts to the same old boring conspiracy theories and anti-American paranoia. I have no doubt about his guilt, and am completely indifferent to his fate. But clearly he was released on inadequate medical evidence to suit some economic or political agenda.

Some show of concern for the victims on here would be a breath of fresh air.

Not exactly. There was no jury. Whenever has a scottish court tried for murder with only 3 judges ?

The concerns for the victims is what it is all about FFS
They get no justice if the wrong person is banged up