Cyprus-Forum.com

[Talisker]

This week the UK and Scottish governments agreed the release, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the one man convicted of the murder of 270 people as a result of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, on the basis that he is in the latter stages of terminal prostate cancer. This man has now returned to Libya to a hero's welcome.

Was the decision to release correct or just plain wrong?

[cyprusgeoff]

Provided he was the man (100% sure) who planted the bomb, made the bomb or even was involved in the disaster he should have rotted in jail until he died.

If he was anyway connected with this bomb he showed no compassion for those on board the aircraft so he should not have been released on compassionate grounds.

[Talisker]

Provided he was the man (100% sure) who planted the bomb, made the bomb or even was involved in the disaster he should have rotted in jail until he died.

If he was anyway connected with this bomb he showed no compassion for those on board the aircraft so he should not have been released on compassionate grounds.

He shouldn't have been convicted of the crime unless he was guilty. I always felt this was a political, rather than criminal, conviction. Interesting article in The Telegraph today giving the views of Jim Swire, father of one of the victims. He is convinced Megrahi is innocent, and that the bombing was revenge for the shooting down of an Iranair flight by an American missile in summer 1988 with loss of 290 lives, and probably had nothing to do with Libya.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html

[Paphitis]

This week the UK and Scottish governments agreed the release, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the one man convicted of the murder of 270 people as a result of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, on the basis that he is in the latter stages of terminal prostate cancer. This man has now returned to Libya to a hero's welcome.

Was the decision to release correct or just plain wrong?

I believe this was the correct decision as the man should be given the opportunity to say Good bye to his relatives and friends.

I find the UK and Scottish decision to be compassionate, and the guy has already spent over 21 years in jail already, and probably only has a few weeks or days to live...

I also happen to doubt the man's guilt, as he could have been scape goat, but do not know enough to make comment on that. But even if he is guilty, then I believe it is still right to release him on compassionate grounds, considering his personal circumstances.

[YFred]

The only bit of evidence they had was that the man who bought the clothes the bomb was wrapped in had a Libyan accent. Add that to the fact that the Americans have paid this witness 2 million dollars to pick him out in a line up after he was shown the picture of the man in a magazine just before the line up and it does need a lot of brain processing power that the yanks fitted this man up good and proper and the Brits did their bidding for them. And of course where did this criminal go after he received his loot, to where all criminals go to, Australia.

May the lot of them rot in hell.

[Paphitis]

The only bit of evidence they had was that the man who bought the clothes the bomb was wrapped in had a Libyan accent. Add that to the fact that the Americans have paid this witness 2 million dollars to pick him out in a line up after he was shown the picture of the man in a magazine just before the line up and it does need a lot of brain processing power that the yanks fitted this man up good and proper and the Brits did their bidding for them. And of course where did this criminal go after he received his loot, to where all criminals go to, Australia.

May the lot of them rot in hell.

Gee whiz...that's all dandy and all that...but how the hell do you know the Americans paid a witness 2 million dollars to pick him out? Did the CIA tell you, or was it the State Department?

Imbecile!

And of course, we in Australia thank mother England for sending us her finest upstanding citizens...

The rest of you can stay out!

[Talisker]

This week the UK and Scottish governments agreed the release, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the one man convicted of the murder of 270 people as a result of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, on the basis that he is in the latter stages of terminal prostate cancer. This man has now returned to Libya to a hero's welcome.

Was the decision to release correct or just plain wrong?

I believe this was the correct decision as the man should be given the opportunity to say Good bye to his relatives and friends.

I find the UK and Scottish decision to be compassionate, and the guy has already spent over 21 years in jail already, and probably only has a few weeks or days to live...

I also happen to doubt the man's guilt, as he could have been scape goat, but do not know enough to make comment on that. But even if he is guilty, then I believe it is still right to release him on compassionate grounds, considering his personal circumstances.

Actually the two Libyans, including Megrahi, thought to be involved were handed over to authorities in The Hague in 1999. Megrahi was convicted and sentenced in 2001. So he's only served 8 years (for 270 murders!).

Although, as I said previously, there seems some doubt about his conviction, on the general point about compassionate early release of prisoners I have to say that I'm not in favour. When someone is found guilty they should serve the sentence, no matter their subsequent health. I definitely don't agree with the decision to release Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber. He chose to escape and avoid his sentence, then when he needed healthcare returned to the UK and back to prison. He should have completed his sentence even if that meant he died behind bars.

[Paphitis]

This week the UK and Scottish governments agreed the release, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the one man convicted of the murder of 270 people as a result of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, on the basis that he is in the latter stages of terminal prostate cancer. This man has now returned to Libya to a hero's welcome.

Was the decision to release correct or just plain wrong?

I believe this was the correct decision as the man should be given the opportunity to say Good bye to his relatives and friends.

I find the UK and Scottish decision to be compassionate, and the guy has already spent over 21 years in jail already, and probably only has a few weeks or days to live...

I also happen to doubt the man's guilt, as he could have been scape goat, but do not know enough to make comment on that. But even if he is guilty, then I believe it is still right to release him on compassionate grounds, considering his personal circumstances.

Actually the two Libyans, including Megrahi, thought to be involved were handed over to authorities in The Hague in 1999. Megrahi was convicted and sentenced in 2001. So he's only served 8 years (for 270 murders!).

Although, as I said previously, there seems some doubt about his conviction, on the general point about compassionate early release of prisoners I have to say that I'm not in favour. When someone is found guilty they should serve the sentence, no matter their subsequent health. I definitely don't agree with the decision to release Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber. He chose to escape and avoid his sentence, then when he needed healthcare returned to the UK and back to prison. He should have completed his sentence even if that meant he died behind bars.

I don't find your stance on this at all unreasonable.

All I know is that the conviction was controversial and so there must be some grounds for doubt. Perhaps the authorities can have some kind of inquiry into the matter? Is this possible, or does his release on "compassionate" grounds prevent this?

Can I ask you what your stance is on capital punishment? Personally, I am against it for 3 reasons. The main reason is that I don't believe the state should have the right to take a person's life. Also, execution methods are inhumane, and many innocent people have been executed in the past.

I believe in the right of life as a fundamental human right, and find it abhorrent if any state condemns a man to death.

[Talisker]

This week the UK and Scottish governments agreed the release, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the one man convicted of the murder of 270 people as a result of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, on the basis that he is in the latter stages of terminal prostate cancer. This man has now returned to Libya to a hero's welcome.

Was the decision to release correct or just plain wrong?

I believe this was the correct decision as the man should be given the opportunity to say Good bye to his relatives and friends.

I find the UK and Scottish decision to be compassionate, and the guy has already spent over 21 years in jail already, and probably only has a few weeks or days to live...

I also happen to doubt the man's guilt, as he could have been scape goat, but do not know enough to make comment on that. But even if he is guilty, then I believe it is still right to release him on compassionate grounds, considering his personal circumstances.

Actually the two Libyans, including Megrahi, thought to be involved were handed over to authorities in The Hague in 1999. Megrahi was convicted and sentenced in 2001. So he's only served 8 years (for 270 murders!).

Although, as I said previously, there seems some doubt about his conviction, on the general point about compassionate early release of prisoners I have to say that I'm not in favour. When someone is found guilty they should serve the sentence, no matter their subsequent health. I definitely don't agree with the decision to release Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber. He chose to escape and avoid his sentence, then when he needed healthcare returned to the UK and back to prison. He should have completed his sentence even if that meant he died behind bars.

I don't find your stance on this at all unreasonable.

All I know is that the conviction was controversial and so there must be some grounds for doubt. Perhaps the authorities can have some kind of inquiry into the matter? Is this possible, or does his release on "compassionate" grounds prevent this?

One of Jim Swire's complaints (see link I provided earlier) is that there has never been a public enquiry into the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103. I doubt it will ever happen although I have no idea if this is tied into the decision to release.

I like Robert Fisk's writing about the political situation in the Middle East - he has a spiky article in The Independent today in which he gives his thoughts on where the blame lies.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 75813.html

Can I ask you what your stance is on capital punishment? Personally, I am against it for 3 reasons. The main reason is that I don't believe the state should have the right to take a person's life. Also, execution methods are inhumane, and many innocent people have been executed in the past.

I believe in the right of life as a fundamental human right, and find it abhorrent if any state condemns a man to death.

We're in agreement about capital punishment. I had an exchange with Cyprusgrump and Lioness 2 last weekend on this very topic.
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... c&start=20

[YFred]

This week the UK and Scottish governments agreed the release, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the one man convicted of the murder of 270 people as a result of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, on the basis that he is in the latter stages of terminal prostate cancer. This man has now returned to Libya to a hero's welcome.

Was the decision to release correct or just plain wrong?

I believe this was the correct decision as the man should be given the opportunity to say Good bye to his relatives and friends.

I find the UK and Scottish decision to be compassionate, and the guy has already spent over 21 years in jail already, and probably only has a few weeks or days to live...

I also happen to doubt the man's guilt, as he could have been scape goat, but do not know enough to make comment on that. But even if he is guilty, then I believe it is still right to release him on compassionate grounds, considering his personal circumstances.

Actually the two Libyans, including Megrahi, thought to be involved were handed over to authorities in The Hague in 1999. Megrahi was convicted and sentenced in 2001. So he's only served 8 years (for 270 murders!).

Although, as I said previously, there seems some doubt about his conviction, on the general point about compassionate early release of prisoners I have to say that I'm not in favour. When someone is found guilty they should serve the sentence, no matter their subsequent health. I definitely don't agree with the decision to release Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber. He chose to escape and avoid his sentence, then when he needed healthcare returned to the UK and back to prison. He should have completed his sentence even if that meant he died behind bars.

I don't find your stance on this at all unreasonable.

All I know is that the conviction was controversial and so there must be some grounds for doubt. Perhaps the authorities can have some kind of inquiry into the matter? Is this possible, or does his release on "compassionate" grounds prevent this?

Can I ask you what your stance is on capital punishment? Personally, I am against it for 3 reasons. The main reason is that I don't believe the state should have the right to take a person's life. Also, execution methods are inhumane, and many innocent people have been executed in the past.

I believe in the right of life as a fundamental human right, and find it abhorrent if any state condemns a man to death.

You are such an arse. The evidence for his innocence is being held by the Brits under the OSA. They were about to present the evidence to the court for his appeal when the brits and the yanks offered him to be released if he drops his appeal, which he did. Bulshit is bulshit and it smells the same every time. If there was any doubt which there was plenty of as it was all circumstantial evidence, this man should never have been convicted.

You seem to apply criminal law in the same maner as the Int Law. If the accused is Muslim? Guilty.
What ever happend to the American Captain for shooting down a civilian Iranian plane.?
Or was it that there was no evidence that he did it?