Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It affords a retrial if further evidence is found. It negates the 'double jeopardy' situation.

In practice it doesn't.

And this is exactly the problem with it being widely misunderstood.
 
(note America who killed 750000 innocent people in Cambodia alone, decides who's evil and who isn't...)

As with most things it's been a while since I looked at the Cambodian bombing campaign so my numbers are rusty. But my recollection is that the *estimates* used to run in the range of something like 50,000 to 500,000.

And in the midst of this there would be civilians and and combatants. That introduces another problem. Because clearly military reports want to play down the civilian casualties. But at the same time they want to play up the effectiveness against combatants. So you can extrapolate up and down - wildly.

Because of the later civilian massacres in Cambodia by the Pol Pot regime there is even more wide range confusion. The ranges for these deaths seem to be wide range estimates, eg. 700,000 to 2.5 million. And this means anybody trying to indirectly to verify their calculations against the population as a whole doesn't have much of a basis to work back from.

By all means state a number to make your point. But it annoys me when I see a top or bottom range number stated without some sort of qualification - whether it be demographics, casualties, profits, costs, deficits, efficiency, or whatever. That's what politicians and the media do to mislead and manipulate us.
 
What concerns me in all this is the precedent it leaves.

So this bloke kills 270 people (convicted, so it stands) and he is let out because he is dieing. Will we next let out Ian Brady, Denis Neilson, Peter Sutcliff or Steve Wright when they become seriously ill? Mind you it wouldnt surprise me as this government (Dame Butler Schloss) let out Venables and his mate not too long ago......

We used to have the death penalty which then became life imprisonment which meant 30 years which came down to 20 and now its about 15 unless you kill a child when you are young yourself in which case its about 7 years. How long before murder attracts a slap on the wrist whilst fraud and embezelment stay up at 20 years or so! Its a sad and mixed up judiciary/government we have these days.
 
So this bloke kills 270 people (convicted, so it stands) and he is let out because he is dieing. Will we next let out Ian Brady, Denis Neilson, Peter Sutcliff or Steve Wright when they become seriously ill?

of course, and of course they will ask to be i suspect in time...
 
What concerns me in all this is the precedent it leaves.

So this bloke kills 270 people (convicted, so it stands) and he is let out because he is dieing. Will we next let out Ian Brady, Denis Neilson, Peter Sutcliff or Steve Wright when they become seriously ill? Mind you it wouldnt surprise me as this government (Dame Butler Schloss) let out Venables and his mate not too long ago......

We used to have the death penalty which then became life imprisonment which meant 30 years which came down to 20 and now its about 15 unless you kill a child when you are young yourself in which case its about 7 years. How long before murder attracts a slap on the wrist whilst fraud and embezelment stay up at 20 years or so! Its a sad and mixed up judiciary/government we have these days.

I didn't think his Radio 2 show was that bad! :D
 
Since you point the finger? Which views 'like' mine?

Views that do not look at the case and assume that the authorities are always rights 100%. Are you saying that the evidence he was convicted of was 100% accurate and without reasonable doubt

So this bloke kills 270 people (convicted, so it stands) and he is let out because he is dieing. Will we next let out Ian Brady, Denis Neilson, Peter Sutcliff or Steve Wright when they become seriously ill?

.

Erm no it does not necessarily mean it stands. The others especially brady was tracked with DNA evidence and some have even confessed and shown the sites of their crimes, pretty much 99.99% (with DNA) accurate so letting those out will be silly
Death penalty was abolished because mistakes were being made and are still being made, like the London park murder.
We are still campaigning for a fan convicted in bulgaria on flimsy evidence and in jail for nowt. I guess that should stand too. Sorry I do not agree.

How many people have been convicted on false charges. I was once accused and arrested by police in a foreign country of trying to steal a car because i walked by on the way to my car in a car park and the alarm of that car went off, so please i have been there and know how it feels.Lucky for me a few exchanges of currency sorted out the sticky situation.

The evidence was with doubt, and i feel this release may be

10% compassionate, 50% guilty conscience due to dodgy procedures of convictions and maybe 40% business deals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/25/comment.homeaffairs

Why is is ok for them to know everything about citizens, but the citizens cannot even find out the total evidence in a murder trial or what even goes on in the planners minds, or risk lawsuits, like the recent papers case for tapping into their phones or private life?
 
Last edited:
Didn't the CIA tool up Bin Laden?

Note how America is happy to sponsor terrorism when said terrorists are attacking America's enemies, but aren't quite so keen on terrorists when they start picking on America and it's interests...

This is common practice throughout time...

Allies promise Vietnam freedom after WW2 and train Ho Che Minn in Guerilla tactics etc.. and renege on promise afterward.. French want Vietnam back - get kicked out and USA support oppressive corrupt govt..the rest is history.

Allies Back Tito during WW2 and let down right wing resistance - Tito turns on west afterwards.

British promise arabs independence after WW1 for support ... but oil is too precious to allow them to keep.

West supports one of the most oppressive regimes to ensure oil flows freely ...and the Saudia Arabian Royal family are still in power......but out of this rises Bin Laden.

So using this guy as the "fall guy" - if that is what happened - wouldn't surprise me one iota. Now we will never know because conveniently his appeal has been quashed by his release.
 
The others especially brady was tracked with DNA evidence and some have even confessed and shown the sites of their crimes, pretty much 99.99% (with DNA) accurate so letting those out will be silly
Death penalty was abolished because mistakes were being made and are still being made, like the London park murder.

but he has been let out still considered guilty - nothing to do with maybe not being guilty so let him out. so if Brady had 3 months to live, his case for release would be just as strong as Al Megarhi's.
 
Mate i have since found out that international politics and its laws are completely different from civil laws and domestic politics.
E.g there are people in this world, who can get up and kill anyone right now and nothing will happen to them, nothing at all.
Can i do that ? No.
And if you think enemy of the state is just a movie, then think again. There are people who can be anything or anyone they want to be.
 
Last edited:
Views that do not look at the case and assume that the authorities are always rights 100%. Are you saying that the evidence he was convicted of was 100% accurate and without reasonable doubt

That, frankly, is offensive. And it's a cheap shot.

The fact that I take a contrary view to yours, or anybody else, does not mean "I assume that the authorities are always rights 100%". And nor for that matter do I assume that the authorities are always wrong 100%.

What I don't like is an assumption of simple right and wrong, I don't like simple moral comparisons, I don't like misrepresentation of isolated facts and numbers, and I don't like people making emotive cases (as opposed to passionate), I don't like false chains of dependencies, and I don't generally like conspiracy theories.

Frankly I have been dismayed at the Scottish Executive's actions and its explanation and the fawning response in some quarters about how this somehow makes Scotland and its system better.

I'd have rather that this had gone to appeal.

And I don't believe for one minute that the law says Megrahi absolutely had to be released on compassionate grounds - I believe that the decision was ultimately discretionary. And regardless of whether it was a bad call the person/people responsible are hiding behind alleged mandatory process.

So I'll leave you to explain the contradiction of how I can hold that view if I "assume that the authorities are always right 100%"
 
That, frankly, is offensive. And it's a cheap shot.

The fact that I take a contrary view to yours, or anybody else, does not mean "I assume that the authorities are always rights 100%". And nor for that matter do I assume that the authorities are always wrong 100%.

What I don't like is an assumption of simple right and wrong, I don't like simple moral comparisons, I don't like misrepresentation of isolated facts and numbers, and I don't like people making emotive cases (as opposed to passionate), I don't like false chains of dependencies, and I don't generally like conspiracy theories.

Frankly I have been dismayed at the Scottish Executive's actions and its explanation and the fawning response in some quarters about how this somehow makes Scotland and its system better.

I'd have rather that this had gone to appeal.

And I don't believe for one minute that the law says Megrahi absolutely had to be released on compassionate grounds - I believe that the decision was ultimately discretionary. And regardless of whether it was a bad call the person/people responsible are hiding behind alleged mandatory process.

So I'll leave you to explain the contradiction of how I can hold that view if I "assume that the authorities are always right 100%"

Excuse me and what is offensive about that? If those are not your views, simply say so and we move on. I felt from your posts they were. If that is not the case, then let me know. They are contrary to mine yes and so what? A lot of my views are contrary to others and i do not claim those are offensive whatsoever. As for being offensive,post 46 comes to mind.

If you are going to turn this into a slanging match, then i would just leave you to it.
I am totally done with this topic and i really do not have time for any confrontation
 
Last edited:
Now that rule 9 has been changed ............... are we going to have a change to rule 6????
 
You are wrong colin_B, neither man has served the sentence passed on them, Biggs lived in South America and put two fingers up to this country and the man he and his mates coshed. He then came back to receive treatment he could not afford abroad. Over two hundred people who lost relatives and friends on the Pan Am jet would certainly not think that the sentence has been served. And as for child killers, I wouldn't have a problem with vigilante justice

Indeed, neither served the sentence they were awarded, but I don't really think that is an issue, both are dying.

I do think the release of Al Megrahi was handled in a particularly lumpen way, which has added nothing helpful either way.

Problem with vigilante justice is it is a wound up mob lynching people for the crime of being black, mentally ill or having the wrong job. I really don't want any part of that, or this.
Vigilantes to be given life jail for killing pensioner - Crime, UK - The Independent
 
Indeed, neither served the sentence they were awarded, but I don't really think that is an issue, both are dying.

I do think the release of Al Megrahi was handled in a particularly lumpen way, which has added nothing helpful either way.

Problem with vigilante justice is it is a wound up mob lynching people for the crime of being black, mentally ill or having the wrong job. I really don't want any part of that, or this.
Vigilantes to be given life jail for killing pensioner - Crime, UK - The Independent

Excuse me what has being black, mentally retarded or having the wrong job got to do with child killers? I would presume from your argument that you do not have children. Defend your thoughts by all means my friend, but stick to the subject.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom