Lockerbie, Libya and Edinburgh

Legally it was probably correct.

Morally it was reprehensible.

Not sure about either the legality or morality, but my god, the craven political bullshit surrounding it still stinks...

As he was convicted on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence then yes

As far as I'm aware the conviction itself was fairly shaky.

Anyway, cancer is a very strange disease. I'm sure if he'd stayed in a Scottish prison he probably would be dead by now.

It seems that the current American crusade is more about vengeance than justice at this point in time.

Given the considerable uncertainty of the Malta evidence a miscarriage of justice does look possible in this case.
I would not have liked to have been on the jury.

What a very stupid question. As far as I'm aware (I could just be idle and ignorant), the full medical reports on which the Scottish government's decision was (presumably) based are not available to the general public, so how on earth are we supposed to know whether that decision was justified or not? This isn't the Sun, guys...

Yes., for several reasons. The decision correponded to Scotland, so Dave and the rest of his licklespittle crew can lump it.
It was legally correct.
He had already spent longer in prison than a "normal" murderer.
Doubts remain about the soundness of his original conviction.
The revolting thirst for revenge rather than truth or justice in all of this is still palpable.
The finger-pointing whingeing morbid that "he hasn't died yet, and they said he would, mummy, they promised, boo hoo" are the really sickening thing in this sorry mess.
The holier-than-thou wailing about "this evil man" - who have never met him - can know nothing about the case other than what is rammed down our throats by the sensationalist media.
It's done now, the whole truth of the matter will never be know to us plebs, so can't we just get over it?
I for one wish him a long and fruitful life for the rest of time on earth, and as for all the whingers, I hope their next shite is a hedgehog.

scapegoat.

Yes, of course. I've no confidence in the procedure or outcome of the trial, though have to add that I wasn't in court... However, the fact that he has maintained his innocence throughout and what I do know of the evidence submitted suggests that a full inquiry into this whole business is called for. Won't happen, of course, because of the diplomatic repercussions...
I don't believe in retributive justice.

everyone shall be released

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

There are too many questions over whether or not he was guilty, but someone was guilty, and terrorists see the West as weak. This was just another example of our weakness.

As he was convicted on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence then yes

This suggests politicians should free those they judge to have been wrongly convicted, without having to go through a tedious formal review of the trial.

Sounds like a dangerous precedent to me. There are good reasons to separate the execuitve from the judiciary.

Megrahi had an appeal coming up which he would probably have won; as his conviction was extremely dodgy, if not ludicrous.

What to do? Get three doctors to convince him he has not long to live and offer him a release on compassionate grounds thereby avoiding the appeal. He was confronted with the dilemma (as he thought) at the time, of dying in prison waiting for the appeal or dying at home.

If the appeal had gone ahead and been successful where would that have left the establishment? His alleged new lease of life is far less embarrassing than what would have come out at the appeal.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was a scapegoat.

The Wiki entry cites some of the evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi

Yes. For the simple reason that he had nothing to do with Lockerbie and was convicted for political reasons. Lockerbie was almost certainly the work of Iranian activists (see the evidence of Dr Jim Swire - his daughter died at Lockerbie so if anyone shoud be interested in the truth, he should). This was in response to the US shooting down an Iran airline plane over the Gulf, with the loss of 300+ lives. By the way, who went to jail for that?

The evidence against him was not strong. He seemed to be a scapegoat and would probably have been released on appeal.

If the decision to release him was based solely on medical/compassionate grounds then it was correct. Otherwise it was wrong - especially if oil interests played any role.

What Exmainer said. Actually, the captain of the USS Vincennes got a medal.

Norfolk
20 Aug 2010, 9:09AM
There are too many questions over whether or not he was guilty, but someone was guilty, and terrorists see the West as weak. This was just another example of our weakness.

I read from this that whenever there is a crime, the police/home office should just look out of the window and lock up the first man they see?

Because that's justice. ~.-

My father-in-law was given 6 months and lived 10 years. Medical science is not exact but then neither is politics.

When Kenny MacAskill (and best friend Alex Salmond) retires he will begin the cult of 'MacAskillism'.

This will replace the religion of 'Buddhism' as the new source wisdom and 'compassion'.

He will meditate on this new source of inspired thinking in a luxury villa...bought for him by the Libyan government.

i think we have enough evidence to suggest scotland cannot deal with matters like that and in the absence of an english parliament.

why was he tried in holland and locked up in scotland when the crime was supposed to have been committed in malta?

then an english parliament allowed the cover up of dr david kelly's death from start to finish.

we're essentially all getting fucked for the remaining oil of the planet.

I agree with the general tenor of the comments so far. The legal aftermath of Lockerbie has been appalling. Also bad is your promotion of this simplistic Yes/No Poll. The Public do not know the facts or the Media veracity of such facts as have been reported.

jacqueughes

I would not have liked to have been on the jury

Regrettably there was NO jury, which is part of the problem. This was NOT a usual Scottish trial. This was a unique "trial" before three hand-picked judges who chose to consider EVERY bit of evidence, no matter how flimsy that "supported" the official story, and to reject every contrary piece of evidence. At the very least the verdict should have been "not proven". It was a sham, and a stain on Scotland's proud record of justice.

@maurmer
As he was convicted on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence then yes

Al-Megrahi looks very much the fall-guy
In a political shemozzle where the stakes were high....

Whilst it is true that the original conviction appears questionable that should be dealt with by an appeal court and should have nothing to do with other considerations.

As a man convicted of mass murder he should still be in prison.

If he was innocent - then there should have been an appeal. Now we'll never know. Releasing him on medical grounds is clearly bullshit cover for the Libian Oil deal and quite representative of the "Moral Compass" of both the Labour and SNP governments of the time.

I remember cringing when Michael Howard referred to Labour as the criminal's friend. Yet reading the moronic comments on here - typified by someone wishing Al Megrahi "a long and fruitful life" - I might have to concede that handbanging rightwingers have a point regarding with their contempt with the left's attitude to law enforcement.

He probably wasn't guilty as Lockerbie was almost certainly commissioned by Iran following the disgusting televised celebrations by the officers and crew of the USS Vincennes on their return to port. Celebrations which, incidentally were far less tasteful and more offensive than anything conceivable by Mr Megrahi's supporters.

However, once the US started demanding that he be kept in gaol until he died, questions of guilt and innocence became peripheral: he had to be released as a firm demonstration to the US that they could not interfere in the Scottish judicial system. If only the UK as a whole would send the samemessage with the same fortitude.

Al-Megrahi was fitted up wasn't he? Or can anyone offer any proof to the contrary?

Tough choices.

If the one chosen by MacAskill had not been taken then the likely alternative was this: Al-Magrahi would have died in a prison/hospital thousands of miles from his family home and not long afterwards his appeal would have been post-humously successful so it would be proven that at a time when it was known that his appeal was likely to be successful and that he only had a few months to live the Scottish Justice Minister took the decision to condemn a victim of a miscarriage of justice to spend the last of his cancer-riddled days in a prison cell away from his family home. That option does not have a great deal to be said for it.

Compassion trumps retribution. The US want revenge in any way they can and involving anyone they want. Megrahi was most likely a very innocent man and that the Scottish legal system was got at to ensure they convicted him. Until the US accepts that international law is for everyone and until we start convicting and jailing US citizens, their cries for revenge will always fall on deaf ears. While the Americans wake up each morning in hope that Megrahi's death is announced, we over here hope the poor man lives on and on after already losing so many years of his life behind bars.

The USA also releases prisoners with terminal cancer on compassionate grounds.

This month one Marilyn Buck, involved in an armed robbery in which several people were killed, died of cancer at home following compassionate release.
For some reason this has not been reported in the UK media.

The Scottish Government has published online a large amount of documentation relating to the Megrahi release decision, and anyone can read it. The decision was entirely correct under the laws of Scotland.

It is apparent that the best medical care unlimited money can buy can keep you alive longer than the standard of care given to prisoners in Scottish jails. This is not overly surprising.

And to those who still feel that Megrahi has in some way "got away with it", all I can say is that I suppose you don't know anyone with late stage prostate cancer. I do know someone who is suffering in that way, and you wouldn't want to take their place.

The soundness or otherwise of Al-M's conviction was a matter for the Scottish judiciary. It has no relevance to the executive decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

If I thought he was actually guilty I wouldn't have agreed with his release, terminally ill or not.

But as I don't it doesn't bother me.

Oldcon

The soundness or otherwise of Al-M's conviction was a matter for the Scottish judiciary. It has no relevance to the executive decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

Legally maybe not. Morally it has everything to do with it.

Trashheap has a very poor understanding of morality it appears.

Maybe they could look at the accusations made by Europerson and learn a little about immorality.

I am generally in favour of the idea that a dying man is released to allow him to die with his family, bot not in all cases. The crimes of some individuals are so terrible that they do not deserve even that much compassion and should die in prison. Even if I accept that this person deserved compassion, something has clearly gone wrong, as somebody with less than 3 months to live is still alive a year later, and apparently has several more years of life to look forward to.

Britain warns Libya over celebrating anniversary

ahhh. has the coalition of the dumbest not yet realised it can treat any of such celebration like an afghan wedding party and get away with it?

Considering the Libyans had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing, but the US stiffled investigations into who actually commited the atrocity, I think it's fair he was eventually released.

He was found guilty in a Scottish court, thus he was, and still is, guilty.

As for McAskill's comassion defence,McAskill has stated that if Thos Hamilton was captured alive and had developed cancer he would have dies in jail.

Its worth noting there isn't any evidence that he is innocent.... but then again nor is there any evidence that he is guilty.

The best result would have been for the appeal to go ahead. But had he stayed in prison he might be dead anyway - the course of cancer appears to depend in many cases on psychological resilience, which in turn is affected by circumstances. Being surrounded by family is good -> live longer, being in prison bad -> die quicker.

Of course had his appeal suceeded it might well have raised tensions with Iran at a time when tensions are already high (Iran being in the frame if Megarhi was pardoned).

Why is there a public interest immunity certificate on all the lockerbie trial paperwork?

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was a Libyan agent. If he did blow up Pan Am 103 then the person ultimately responsible for the massacre must be our new friend in North Africa Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi.

In April 1986, 33 US warplanes took off from two bases in England, flew to Libya and dropped 300 bombs and 48 missiles on five targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. The raid was ordered by Ronald Reagan “to send a message to Gaddafi and reduce Libya's ability to support and train terrorists”. Of course many of the bombs missed their targets and did unplanned damage. The strike killed 60 Libyans including Gadaffi’s adopted daughter Hanna. We never see the grieving relatives of these victims on our TV screens yet they are every bit as innocent as the victims of the Lockerby bombing.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning the attack declaring it “a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law."

For a moment just suppose that the UN had the ability to force the US to hand over the pilots of the warplanes to stand trial for the murder of 60 Libyans on the grounds that the raids were illegal. Suppose that one of them was convicted and sentenced to life in a Libyan jail. How do you think we in the West would feel if that man had a terminal disease and was released on compassionate grounds? Can you imagine the hero’s welcome he would get in the USA when he stepped off the plane bringing him home. Would anyone in the West object if there were celebrations to mark a year after he returned?

We treated Megrahi as a common murderer but see no reason to condemn those who planned and executed the 1986 raid. This is seen all over the Muslim and Arab worlds as typical of Western hypocrisy.

Megrahi's release was an act not of compassion, but of cynicism. Just as he was convicted for political reasons, he was released for political reasons. As others have said, Megrahi's case was due for an appeal, which would very likely have overturned the verdict, or, at the very least, have brought all sorts of stuff out of the woodwork which would have been acutely embarassing for the Yanks and Brits.

So of course he should have been released. He should never have been imprisoned.

Loftytom

He was found guilty in a Scottish court, thus he was, and still is, guilty.

No..He has been declared guilty. That doesn't mean that he actually was guilty.

If you are going to comment on the release of al-Megrahi, you ought to read the Private Eye investigation "Lockerbie: the Flight from Justice" first.

Initial investigations established that a terror cell sponsored by Iran (who had motive - revenge for the shooting down of an airliner) and with Syrian assistance was almost certainly responsible. Then came the first gulf war, and the necessity to have Syria on-side meant that the Iran-Syria line of enquiry was conveniently abandoned. An unreliable (to put it mildly) CIA informant fingered al-Megrahi, various inconvenient bits of evidence that didn't fit this hypothesis were conveniently forgotten, and the rest is history.

Of course, when he was released, he was on the verge of appealing his conviction. Would have been terribly embarrassing for all concerned if he'd cleared his name, wouldn't it?

It is unlikely that Megrahi was guilty in the first place, and that the truth is buried in some intelligence file of the CIA, MI6 and others. Yes, it was right to release him.

al-Megrahi shouldn't have been released on compassionate grounds.
He should have been released on the grounds that he was not guilty in the first place, and had, from day one, been a politically expedient scapegoat.

The American government got off lightly, and should learn from this. They should also learn to check any suitcases given to them by their Syrian-based heroin smuggling business partners.

I am very uncomfortable with people waiting for a man to die. It's as if people want him dead so they can say 'that's the end of that then'. If this man was British or US surely we would be celebrating his release if we too thought his conviction was political?

The question as posed is too simplistic.The trial had many holes in it, the conviction was based on very flimsy evidence. A man was framed for the tragedy in my opinion and so yes, I approve of the decision to release him, but not because of the compassionate grounds, but because I think he is innocent.