By Brian Barder
I have no doubt that the Scottish National Party’s Mr MacAskill, Justice Secretary in the devolved government of Scotland, was right to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of complicity in the Lockerbie bombing, from prison in Scotland to enable him to spend his last few weeks on earth in his own country with his family.
A friend who has been giving television interviews about the case has also supported Kenny MacAskill’s decision. I sent him a message of congratulations, copying it to a number of others of varying political views. In this message I commented that I couldn’t help relishing the spectacle of this Scottish National Party Cabinet minister, of whom none of us had ever heard until last week, defiantly rejecting the pressures from the seven misguided Senators, an interfering Hillary Clinton and a sorrowful White House to make a decent, humane decision (lucky for Megrahi it wasn’t Jack Straw!).
In my view far too much exposure has been given by the media in recent weeks to the views of the victims’ families, especially those clamouring for Megrahi to be left to die in his Scottish prison cell. It seems to me that their perfectly natural emotional involvement disqualifies their wishes from being given special weight, rather than entitling their views to be treated as paramount. Our judicial system is designed to take justice out of the hands of victims with, in many cases, their natural desire for vengeance, and to ensure an objectivity of judgement that no-one should ask or expect of them. We can and should feel the utmost sympathy for them in their loss, but they should all be invited to read the Oresteia[1] and ponder its lessons, available to us ever since 458 BC. It’s also a pity that attention has been concentrated on the outrage expressed by the American victims’ families (who are of course the majority) at Megrahi’s release, with relatively little attention paid to some of the British families whose spokespersons have in some cases welcomed the decision, often also expressing grave doubts about whether Megrahi’s conviction was safe. As a BBC report says, ‘Doctor Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the Lockerbie bombing, has praised the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill for his ”brave” decision in releasing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from jail on compassionate grounds.’ You can listen to Dr Swire’s admirably humane interview here.
Perhaps an adjustment is needed to the moral compasses of those, including David Cameron, who have been arguing that because Megrahi showed no compassion to his Lockerbie victims (assuming that he was responsible for their deaths), no compassion should have been shown to him by the Scottish judicial system. I suppose by the same token these revenge freaks would like to see torturers judically tortured. It’s a strange ethical philosophy that wants society to adopt the morals of a mass murderer (which is what those concerned believe Megrahi to be), principally, apparently, in the hope that it might make some of the victims’ families feel better.
Several reports have hinted heavily that the whole thing has been a dark conspiracy by the British government, presumably in league with the Scottish National Party, to protect BP’s and Shell’s Libyan oil interests. No evidence has so far been produced in support of this, and indeed it would have been wrong to allow such mercenary considerations to influence a quasi-judicial decision, although personally I would feel more indignant about any such impropriety had political or commercial considerations led to Megrahi’s release being refused instead of allowed. Anyway, I can’t see anything wrong in principle with governments doing what they properly can to protect their countries’ oil interests. It would be scandalous if they didn’t. (By the same token, I was always uneasy about the proposition, a propos the Iraq war, that the US was behaving wickedly in seeking to protect the security of its Iraqi and other middle east oil supplies, although obviously that legitimate concern couldn’t justify the unprovoked aggression against and occupation of a sovereign independent country.)
Where I do sympathise with some of the victims’ families is in their desire to get to the bottom of what really happened in 1988 and to establish who (plural) were responsible for it. When the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission rules, after exhaustive review of the evidence, that there are grounds for an appeal against Megrahi’s conviction, one has to take note and start to ask questions. Even if he was personally involved, it’s clear that others were too. It’s regrettable that Megrahi’s appeal had to be dropped as a condition of his release on compassionate grounds (as I understand it). But the likelihood is that even if the appeal had been heard, we wouldn’t have got satisfactory answers to all the questions still hanging in the air. The same probably applies to any judicial inquiry, even in the unlikely event of any government agreeing to set one up. I wonder whether anyone apart from Gadaffi — or even Gadaffi, indeed! — really knows what happened. I suppose it’s just going to be another Mary [sic] Celeste.
As a matter of interest, of the 15 or 20 responses to my pro-release e-mail message, only two have so far disagreed, arguing that Megrahi should have been left to die in prison in Scotland. A selection of those responses is on my website, here.
[1] “Initially, in their role as avengers of bloodshed, the Erinyes are classical equivalents to the Code of Hammurabi and the Torah, which demand “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Thus, they initially embody the concept of lex talionis, or “law of retribution”. The change from an archaic self-help justice by personal revenge or vendetta to administration of justice by trial symbolises the passage from a primitive society governed by instincts, to a modern society governed by reason: justice is decided by a jury of peers, representing the citizen body and its values, and the gods themselves sanction this transition by taking part in the judicial procedure, arguing and voting on an equal footing with the mortals. This theme of the polis self-governed by consent through lawful institutions, as opposed to tribalism and superstition, recurs in Greek art and thought.” [Emphasis added]
Brian
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Downing Street approved Lockerbie bomber deal
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6815638.ece
Megrahi 'included' in Libya deal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/30/libya-jack-straw-lockerbie-bomber
The fact that he has served only ten days per victim is nothing to do with the decision made by the Scottish Justice Secretary. If he had decided against releasing him now, Megrahi would still have served only around 10 days per victim at the time of his death. Even Mr MacAskill didn't have the option of compelling Megrahi to serve the remaining 19 years of his tariff in prison. Megrahi will be saved from that by his death, not by Mr MacAskill, Gordon Brown, Lord Mandelson, the Queen, or even the respected editor of LabourList. It's funny how difficult it seems to be for some people to grasp that. Quite simple (to coin a phrase)!
It's a fundamental feature of all western systems of justice, going back to classical Greek times, that society removes from the victims of crime the right to take revenge on those who have committed them, since it's acknowledged that in many cases a victim will be so emotionally affected by the effects of the crime as to risk his or her judgement of the evidence and the rights and wrongs of a just punishment being distorted. The purpose of our courts, judges and other legal authorities taking the power to assess the evidence, decide a verdict, and where necessary decide on fair and just punishment, is precisely to ensure that these things are done fairly and dispassionately, not in the heat of anger and the desire for vengeance. For this reason we allow, even encourage, victims of crime to express their views, describe the harm the crime has done them, and state their opinions on what punishment would be appropriate. But the court (or minister making a quasi-judicial decision) also has to hear the accused and his defence, and his plea in mitigation; it has to consider the guidance on sentencing issued by senior judges, and the precedents for sentences in other similar cases; it considers the recommendations of parole boards, medical experts, social workers, and anyone else who knows about the case and has an expert opinion to offer. In trying to reach a conclusion after hearing all these opinions and recommendations, the court or other authority has to decide to what extent it should discount the wishes of the victims as being unduly influenced by personal distress, anger, vengefulness or other emotions that can have no place in judicial proceedings. For the media to concentrate almost exclusively on the views, anger, distress and demands of the victims, and then to complain when their demands are not always automatically complied with, gives a wholly misleading picture of the many other factors which have to be considered in making a calm judicial decision such as that which Mr MacAskill was called upon to make. We should sympathise deeply with the Lockerbie victims, we should entirely understand their distress at the idea of the murderer of their loved ones being released early from prison, we certainly shouldn't condemn them for feeling the way any of us would feel in their position. But for all these reasons, and whatever the sensation-loving media might say, the victims can't be allowed to decide on retribution versus compassion.
And I can only repeat that I have never expressed the ridiculous view that criminals should not be punished. Nor to the best of my recollection have I ever heard anyone else express such a view. To argue that a convicted offender who has served his or her full tariff, in other words who has suffered the punishment decreed by the court, should be released if the parole board recommends release and is satisfied that the person is unlikely to reoffend, is obviously quite different from saying that he or she should never have been punished in the first place. Similarly, if Megrahi had not become terminally ill and according to professional medical advice likely to die within a few weeks or months, I would certainly not have suggested that it was wrong for him to stay in jail until the end of his tariff (27 years) whereupon it would have been for the parole board to recommend for or against his release. Obviously though if he had won his appeal against conviction he would have had to be released earlier, probably with handsome compensation for his wrongful imprisonment. But he's unlikely to live long enough for that, which is clearly why he dropped the appeal in order to be eligible for compassionate release. Eight years in prison is not a negligible punishment: it's obviously correct that it's inadequate to reflect the gravity of his dreadful crime: but it's not Mr MacAskill who is saving him from serving out the remaining 19 years of his tariff. It's his death.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Asking Gordon Brown to express a view on the Scottish decision to release Megrahi is a waste of time, and you can't infer anything whatever from his silence on the matter. It's literally nothing to do with him. There's just no comparison with Gordon Brown commenting on some woman in the X-Factor: that is unrelated to any subject devolved to the Scottish (or Welsh or Northern Ireland) government, and any matter not devolved is in principle a matter for which the Westminster government remains responsible. The implications of devolution take some getting used to, but it's time we all tried!
As to the suspicions that British trade interests in Libya were somehow behind the decision to release Megrahi, Brown and Mandelson have explicitly denied having put any such pressure on MacAskill before he made his decision, and MacAskill has repeatedly explained the basis on which his decision was made, which don't include commercial or any such extraneous factors. In any case, if UK ministers had tried surreptitiously to influence MacAskill's decision, or to dictate to him what it should be, it's a fair bet that MacAskill would have exposed them very promptly indeed: he would have had no possible motive for protecting them from the revelation of such improper behaviour, and every motive for exposing them. The knowledge of that would anyway have deterred UK ministers from trying on such a dodgy and easily exposed manoeuvre. But the conspiracy theory merchants will no doubt go on speculating away without being inconvenienced by the facts.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
My unfounded guess is that London couldn't confirm that such a promise had been given without revealing that in the famous 'deal in the desert' Blair had promised Gaddafi that Britain would negotiate a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya under which it was implicitly understood that Megrahi would be transferred to Libya to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan prison. But this was a promise that Blair should never have given, first because his own government had already promised the Americans that Megrahi would serve the whole of his sentence in Scotland, and secondly because any decisions regarding Megrahi's transfer or release were a matter for the Scottish Justice Secretary in Edinburgh, and not in the gift of the government at Westminster, including Blair or his successor. Hence, I suspect, London's otherwise mysterious silence in response to MacAskill's urgent requests for information. Such is the mess we get into when a British prime minister makes snap decisions in a tent in the desert, or on the couch in No. 10, without first taking the trouble to get official advice or to find out the facts.
Not only do numerous commentators in the media and the blogosphere seem to be ignorant, as you say, of the long-standing independence and long separate history of Scottish law: they also seem unable to grasp the fundamental point about devolution, i.e. that the Westminster government has given up its powers and responsibilities in certain areas that have been devolved to Scotland and/or to the other devolved nations, that these include the administration of Scottish law in Scotland, and that accordingly it's not for Westminster politicians or, especially, ministers to pontificate on those subjects. Brown is absolutely correct in refusing to say whether or not he approves of the decision to release Megrahi, and indeed it would be improper for him to do so. Some commenters think it's very funny to hear Brown saying, in effect, "Don't ask me: nothing to do with me, Gov," as if this showed what an evasive fellow Brown is, whereas it's in fact a precisely accurate account of the constitutional position post-devolution. Perhaps if we're lucky the Westminster village will begin to understand the implications of devolution in a couple of decades' time, or thereabouts.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Lockerbie was 'state sponsored murder'.
Capital punishment - as enacted in this country until 1965 - is lawful retribution.
"I don’t think what has happened will undermine our relationships with Israel, or the United States, or other countries who engage with us in the fight against terrorism.†He concluded by saying that he wanted to “work with Libya†in fighting terrorism around the world."
Where does this leave all the ranting by Labour in Scotland? Brown is tacitly saying he is OK with MacAskill's decision.
Brian - it is a pity that so many posters do not appear to understand that Scots Law is independent of English Law and not a sub-clause. Scots Law has a 700 year tradition, in its current form, based on the constitutional position that the people of Scotland are sovereign and not the crown as laid out by the Scottish Parliament in 1328. Further the Act of Union in 1707 preserved the independence of Scots Law and is one of the few conditions of Union that Westminster has upheld.
What MacAskill followed was 'due process' based on the evidence of all the agencies involved in making the decision he made which included independent medical assessments of the Libyan's medical condition. As a lawyer of good repute in Scotland, known to be scrupulous when dealing with legal matters MacAskill made his decision not to agree to a prisoner transfer (Brown and Obama's preferred option) as it would breach a promise made by previous Scottish Justice Ministers to the people of the USA that the term should be served in Scotland.
As for the dropping of appeals; the major stumbling block was a long standing CPS appeal to the Scottish courts, on behalf of the British Government, for an even harsher sentence in a legal attempt to delay further the Libyan's new appeal against his sentence. Then we have the Milliband blocking access to key documents on the agreement between the USA and the Westminster government regarding Megrahi by MacAskill and refusing the Scottish Criminal Case Review Division access to key documents under 'National Interest' considerations.
I leave Labour List readers to come to their own assessment of the real issue Megrahi dropping his appeal brings to light.
The problem is that it looks shady and, unfortunately, the mood generally is one of mistrust and people first thoughts are "what are they getting out if it?".
I know it shouldn't be like that (and I take your final 2 points) but to be fair they have brought it on themselves to a large degree.
Thanks for the comment.
Even between opposing political parties when in and out of government, I believe a loose 'back-scratching' code exists where one side doesn't 'drop the other in it', especially when and where the intelligence services are concerned. Labour won't expose Tory shortcomings because it knows that there are a few skeletons in its own cupboard.
Of course, this does nothing for public information and speculation thereby results. As far as the speculation goes, my own code is (i) 'shovelful of salt, take' and (ii) if you don't know it, don't say it.
It does make you wonder why the government is so quiet on it then. Surely if they felt they could drop the Tories in it then they would.
I know it's on rumour but the trade angle sounds plausable but if it's wrong, why doesn't GB say so? Having said that, would he be believed? Guess not.
No he hasn't - Al Megrahi was in a classic 'Catch-22' situation. If he had continued with his appeal (which had been granted so there must be compelling evidence that his original conviction is unsafe) then he would have had to remain in jail.
With death clearly imminent, then to be released and go home to die with his family, he had to drop his appeal. What would you have done if you had been in his position?
There is a similar Catch-22 situation with prisoners applying for parole. Unless they admit their guilt and show remorse, then they are not considered for parole. But if they are truly innocent, then they are not going to admit to something they didn't do and are then kept in jail longer.
I also suggest, Dave, that you look at the UK's long history of getting terrorist prosecutions wrong - the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 5 immediately spring to mind - before you blindly accept that Al Megrahi really is guilty.
Richard
When you also take account of the evidence that was witheld from the original trial, he clearly shouldn't have been convicted.
" ... if you are the Labour Government and maybe do not want the appeal to be heard because of what it might reveal about the incompetence or corruption in the original investigation."
This act of terrorism occurred in December, 1988 ; are you saying that no 'original investigation' occurred before May, 1997 - eight and a half years later?
We all know that he was destined tro ber hailed as a hero on his return to Libya, it was totally naive of our politicians to think that any other reception was waiting for him. So what we have done is released a murdering terrorist into the bosom of his own country without his ever showing any contrition for hos actions and to be hailed as a hero on his return home.
The cynic in me now expects him to make a remarkable recovery from his cancer ( which no doubt will be hailed as a miracle and just rewards for his suffering at the hands of his captors in his homeland) and live a long and pampered life as befits a hero.
Vicky makes a good point I believe in response to the "conspiracy theories":
It is very convenient for the Scots Nats to take all the flak, if you are the Labour Government and maybe do not want the appeal to be heard because of what it might reveal about the incompetence or corruption in the original investigation.
The thing is that it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for this to be true. With there being some doubt by many over the original conviction, this does effectively sweep things under the carpet.
Again it may only be co-incedence but had this been something like a terrorist being convicted I am sure Gordon Brown would have something to say.
He has so far appeared to make more comments about an originally unknown woman on X-Factor last year than he has on this matter.
If it was something he could prove he had nothing to do with he would be shouting from the rooftops I suspect. This then makes me and others wonder why the silence. This is not a trivial matter and if they are only rumours then he surely needs to stand up and say so.
I have read with interest a number of your previous posts and have learned from them.
Conversely, I don't think I have ever agreed with Northern Monkey before, but in my view the points he has made are entirely cogent.
That the views of victims' families should be discounted because of their obvious emotional involvement is ridiculous and offensive.
People have allowed doubts over Megrahi's guilt to influence their judgment on compassion.
You ask the question: who has said criminals should not be punished?
You have, in your original post and your subsequent comments.
I agree that any civilised justice system should judge its own actions on the basis of its own principles and not those of the perpetrator. I also agree that there has been too much of the oppositional American views published and not enough of those whose lives were also affected but who did not oppose the release.
However I am a bit sceptical about it being just a straight decision for MacAskill. It is very convenient for the Scots Nats to take all the flak, if you are the Labour Government and maybe do not want the appeal to be heard because of what it might reveal about the incompetence or corruption in the original investigation.
I just hope that the medical opinion was based on more than the view of one doctor....
Such a person should indeed be kept in prison, since he would not satisfy another criterion for compassionate release, namely a near-certainty that if released he would not re-offend. Mr Megrahi obviously did satisfy that criterion.
2. >>Would you have let the Moors Murderers out of prison if they had a terminal illness? What about Harold Shipman?<<
Myra Hindley, even before she became terminally ill, certainly should have been released from prison after serving her tariff and having been recommended for release by her parole board, which was satisfied that she was a reformed character and would not re-offend. She was kept in prison until she died purely because successive cowardly home secretaries were terrified of being lambasted by the Sun newspaper and other tabloids (and bloggers) if they did what justice and the judge at her trial had required and let her out. Ian Brady has been sectioned which means that if released he's likely to be a danger to others and himself, so his release is clearly out of the question so long as he remains sectioned. Whether Shipman should have been released at the end of his tariff (whatever that was) should have depended mainly on the judgement of the parole board at the time as to the extent of the risk of his re-offending if released. But the question never arose because he committed suicide long before the end of his tariff.
>>There's nothing cruel about expecting a mass-murderer to die in prison. There's nothing authoritarian about expecting criminals to be punished. It's called justice.<<
Megrahi's sentence did not require him to die in prison. The reasonable expectation was that after serving his 27-years tariff he would be released. The cruelty lies in keeping in prison someone who has only a few weeks to live, and who will almost certainly not re-offend if allowed to spend the short time left to him in his own country with his family. As to your criticism of people who don't approve of criminals being punished, perhaps you would explain whom you had in mind? I don't know of anyone opposed to the punishment of criminals, and I suspect that you don't, either.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
There should be no ethical comparisons between indiscriminate, mass murderers and the Scottish judicial system. You are right that this is a
rather disturbing, immoral and subjective method of justice; the torturer example was very apt.
Furthermore, the US government has displayed an arragont, complacent and wanton interference and comment on the judicial affairs of Scotland,
there is no deference to the justice system of a democratic ally which I find very dissapointing.
Meanwhile, Brown's silence is clearly untenable but I hope he will act deferentially to the Scottish Parliament and support the concept of
devolution he supported, perhaps that will be the key outcome of this difficult case.
And yet, wasn't it the US government that quietly released William Calley just 5 months after he had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam?
And wasn't it the British government that freed many convicted IRA murderers under the Good Friday agreement? I don't remember the views of the murdered relatives being given any weight in the decision.
Maybe the Megrahi decision was wrong but it was at least taken for principled reasons. Many of the people now criticising the decision should reflect on the hypocrisy of their own governments in the past.
It is also good to see a government that does not blindly dance to America's tune and is prepared to make an unpopular decision - a refreshing change from the Blair years when the UK went along with anything & everything George Bush wanted.
Richard
My fellow Scots, on the other hand, seem more level-headed and realise that justice is only served when the *right* man/men are caught. Otherwise injustice is compounded.
Since the Americans started torturing and imprisoning people for years without trial in Guantánamo Bay, they don't deserve to be heard in matters of either justice or compassion.
They seem to think they own the world. Maybe because they use up so much of its resources!
His sentence was not "some time but if he gets poorly he can go home for a party".
Ten day sentences have been handed out because he was freed. He should have been left in prison to serve - LIFE.
And Gordon Brown should give a statement - this is an international affair. The majority of the victims were American and much criticism has therefore come from America. Gordon Brown represents the whole of the UK on the international stage.
"this guy probably did some shady things as an intelligence officer for Libya but not this." How do you know that he has not done this? Think of the amount dead and then say this out loud again.
In my view we have released this man for trade and missjudged this massively. The Americans may or may not have been in on it, but parading this man as a hero has caught us out. This already has cost us and will cost us more.
"Enlightened leadership by Labour with the support of the Scottish people may help them overcome their difficulties. And that's a deal worth buying into." Please explain what this means in specific actions.
Many of the US victims associations were not consulted, many haven't even had chance to organise to discuss this. You mention the victims in one sentence of your verbose article and certainly fail to mention the feelings of Syracuse School; 35 of their students were killed.
"During this time our thoughts are with the Pan Am Flight 103 victims and their families and, as always, keeping the memories alive of those we lost. From the beginning, we have wanted justice to be served in this case. Given the tremendous suffering this terrorist act caused to innocent citizens, their families, and their communities, we are extremely disappointed that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has been released."
How convienient you skirt over their feelings; how little you concentrate on the concept of justice as redress for the victim. How typically left-wing when your perverted concern is more for the perpetrator than the many, many victims. What utter contempt.
The condemnation amongst the relatives has been almost universal yet their feelings were ignored. How telling Brian that you gloss over that and discuss the mere politics of the matter and a perverted compassion without even listing how many people this man killed.
Sick.
Would you have let the Moors Murderers out of prison if they had a terminal illness? What about Harold Shipman?
This decision by MacAskill has shook the faith people have in the justice system. There's nothing cruel about expecting a mass-murderer to die in prison. There's nothing authoritarian about expecting criminals to be punished. It's called justice. And that's something seemingly lacking in the SNP mentality.
Do you take the view that language such as 'condescending drivel' helpfully advances the debate?
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Before you accuse me of woolly thinking you might at least take the trouble to find out the facts. I suggest that you might usefully start by reading the exchange of views and ideas about all this, including dissenting opinions strongly but courteously expressed, here -- especially the comments appended to it and the responses to them.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Brown's silence means nothing except that the decision on release had and has nothing whatever to do with him or with the government that he heads. For him to second-guess the one person, a minister in a quite different government, who had the responsibility for making this agonising, no-win decision, would be rash and improper. (I shan't be too surprised if he does eventually yield to the almost salacious pressures for a comment, though.)
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
No-one is condoning or handing down ten-day sentences for murder. Megrahi is being prevented from serving out his 27-year tariff by his impending death, not by Mr MacAskill or any other human. There's nothing comically lenient about that.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Neither I nor anyone else is "throwing aside" the views of the victims' families, nor denying them the right to be listened to. Mr MacAskill has repeatedly described how he was at great pains to listen to them all and stressed that he took their views fully into account. The quite different point is that in our system of justice victims of a crime can't for obvious reasons be asked to make the objective, impartial judgements about the verdict and sentence to be passed which we demand of a judge and jury (or in this case a group of judges and now a minister acting in a quasi-judicial capacity). Victims have the right to be heard and to be listened to, but not to dictate decisions.
Whichever decision MacAskill had made would have inflamed passions and anger. He chose to give more weight to compassion, after examining all the circumstances in the light of the criteria for compassionate release, than to retribution. We aren't talking about a reduction of the sentence from the 27-year tariff imposed at the trial to the eight years he had actually served: we are talking about the choice between him spending his last few weeks in a Scottish prison hospital or dying in his own country after being able to have his final few weeks with his wife and five children. Some of us think the former would have been intolerably harsh. Others think the latter is far too lenient. Both are entitled to their view. Neither side, though, has any right to insult and denounce the other. Grown-ups ought to be able to recognise and respect the possibility of perfectly decent and honourable people holding views with which they strongly disagree.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
That is medieval style justice."
How exactly would that be "medieval"?
Mr MacAskill has made it clear that under Scottish law any prisoner may appeal for release on compassionate grounds and that the Justice Secretary is then legally required to consider that appeal in relation to certain criteria. If those criteria are satisfied, he is obliged to grant the appeal. The virtual certainty of death within around three months has always hitherto been accepted as justifying early release if the other criteria are satisfied. MacAskill was satisfied that they were. He told the Scottish parliament today that there is no precedent for a prisoner whose circumstances satisfied the criteria not being released. Obviously it's not completely 'automatic' as the Justice Secretary has to make a judgement about whether some of the criteria have been satisfied to the necessary extent.
Thus it's not right to say that MacAskill has not given us the reasons for his decision that Megrahi deserved compassion. He qualified for compassionate release because he satisfied the criteria.
He couldn't have been sent back to Libya to serve the rest of his sentence -- or rather the rest of his life, a very different matter -- in a Libyan prison because (a) the US government said it had had definite assurances that he would serve the whole of his sentence in Scotland, and (b) under the agreement with Libya for returning prisoners to their homeland to serve the rest of their sentences nearer home, there has to be no appeal pending, and in Megrahi's case there's an outstanding appeal against his sentence by the Crown (or its Scottish equivalent).
As Mr MacAskill has said several times, whichever decision he took it was certain to upset and anger large numbers of people. He listened to the points of view and wishes of everyone concerned, including the British and American victims' families and the US government, examined the facts and the law, and made his decision. In what way has that been a disaster? It was not in the Scottish Justice Secretary's gift, nor in the gift of any man or government, court or Crown, to make Megrahi serve out the whole of his 27-year tariff. There's comprehensive expert medical evidence that the man is dying and will probably be dead within three months or so.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
If having your loved ones blown to pieces doesn’t lend a ‘special weight’ to your views what does?
Seems to me it's a bit up yourself to be talking about mercy and forgiveness. It's not you that suffered the loss. Those families who have lost loved ones deserve some respect not this condescending drivel.
Insufferably arrogant.
"In my view far too much exposure has been given by the media in recent weeks to the views of the victims’ families, especially those clamouring for Megrahi to be left to die in his Scottish prison cell. It seems to me that their perfectly natural emotional involvement disqualifies their wishes from being given special weight, rather than entitling their views to be treated as paramount."
Words fail me, Brian, to express my contempt for your opinion.
You will never, ever get a sane response from a grieving or wronged party. Their judgement is clouded and they cannot think rationally.
Would you ask someone who had their house burgled to set the burgler's sentence? Would you ask a rape victim to do the same for her attacker?
That is medieval style justice.
Sorry, what? 20 years ago, this man was judged guilty of murdering hundreds of innocents. Since then, our society has provided him with food, shelter and safety despite his total lack of remorse.
Where's the equivalence?
Bit of a bizarre interpretation of democracy you have there.
There's no justice in a system which allows a mass-murderer out of jail after just 8 years. Where was MacAskill's compassion for the families of the victims?
I have to say, I'm not keen on the way you just throw the views of the victims' families aside Brian. They have every right to have their say, and to be listened to. In fact, they have far more right to be listened to than the murderer himself. Equally, it should be expected that US politicians will have their say too given the majority of those killed were American.
It's ridiculous decisions like the one taken by MacAskill which fuels support for extreme parties on the far-right as they can easily paint the 'governing classes' as soft, weak and incapable of punishing criminals appropriately.
This decision has humiliated Scotland on the global stage. Seeing all those Saltaire flags flown in Tripoli in celebration of the return of a mass-murderer will do Scotland no good whatsoever.
This is party and Americanist policies at their worse.
Shame on Ian Gray, Annabelle Goldie and so forth.
What gets me about the Tories is they're so desperate to win they'll spin anything even if it's contradictory just to look favourable in the media. But it doesn't stack up. If there's any wooly thinking the simple logic parks it at their door. Not only are they brain dead but the assumption it's an "up yours" is just typical of their nastiness.
Could go into all the evidence to suggest that Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber, but then it doesn't really matter any more, he is free and back on his home soil. Meanwhile GB has to decide whether to return the DVD set to Obama or face being the first Scotsman to reuse the Scottish Maiden since 1710. He can sit in silence for a while, but as with everything else he's sat in silence over, it eventually comes back to haunt.
The real losers in this situation are the families of the victims. They are the ones reliving what happened back then and having to watch as a political football match breaks out.
I dont think it is a Scottish law that prisoners near to death (3 months) are automatically released - otherwise there would have been no debate and no decisions to make.
Mr MacAskill has not given us the reasons why he thought this man deserved compassion - but at face value I dont think I would have done so.
A far more sensible approach would have been to agree to allow him to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan prison so he could be near his family; for him to be flown back in a British airforce plane and to be escorted to the prison by two British policemen.
It has been a complete disaster - and politicians wonder why we have no faith in them or respect for them.
He does it every time -- dither till there is no choice or the winner is clear. And then use bluff and bluster to say it was his plan all along...
From what I've read Gordon Brown has acted properly throughout. Tory and media attempts to start another bonfire are just so much cheap grandstanding as gross as their abuse of the Baby P affair. Yes, this is a grave and upsetting case but that's no excuse for political or journalistic opportunism.
I'm also satisfied that Mandelson has operated properly throughout. The affairs of nations aren't always dictated to by the bully pulpit but by soft power and personal relationships. The fact that Mandelson can keep a straight head and use his people skills to win over people like Gaddafi should be applauded.
The Americans and Arabs have got themselves into a pickle. Obama is currently under a great deal of pressure over American healthcare and the Arabas have many pressing issues. Enlightened leadership by Labour with the support of the Scottish people may help them overcome their difficulties. And that's a deal worth buying into.
Does he condone 10-day sentences for murder?
Should Bin Laden be given 60 hours community service?
I think you'll find his health had nothing to do with it, what actually happened was a very rich, privileged and influential man had a little chat with his friend Peter. Peter is always very keen to do whatever he can for his rich, privileged and influential friends, after all they might not be his friend anymore if he didn't! Peter had a word with Gordon and told him to sort it out, Gordon always does what Peter tells him so he phoned Kenny and . . . . . the rest is history.
By the way, what happens to prisoners who don't have rich, privileged and influential friends? I imagine there is quite a lot of dying in prison in the normal day to day run of things.
The problem is that there is mounting evidence that suggests the guy was released for trade reasons. Brown's continued silence doesn't help dispel this issue.
Like it or not al-Megrahi was found guilty in a court of law that was painstakingly negotiated, established and executed. He is a mass murderer and as such by any sense of moral code he is beyond the laws of parole. He is certainly beyond any sense of "compassionate grounds" afforded to other criminals and certainly not after such a short period of time to atone for what he did.
He was found guilty by weight of evidence and on the basis of no unreasonable doubt of being directly responsible of killing 210 people.
It's not a brave decision to free him, it is a foolish one and one I fear based on other political interests than justice for the victims of the bombing. It is also to remove a sense of justice to many other victims families whose opinions were neither sought or heard.
Brian, your wooly thinking does little to actually move the debate on, to also convey this as a political 'up yours' to the US actually turns my stomach.