Terminally ill Libyan bomber in '88 Lockerbie Pan Am bombing to be released

[CougarKing]

A concession on the part of the UK government to the Libyan government?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_lockerbie

Decision in Lockerbie case Thursday
By BEN McCONVILLE, Associated Press Writer Ben Mcconville, Associated Press Writer
Wed Aug 19, 5:46 pm ET

EDINBURGH, Scotland – A decision has been reached in the case of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and will be announced Thursday, the Scottish government said. British news networks reported that he would be released on compassionate grounds.

Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill said he had informed the families of the victims that he had come to a decision about what to do with the terminally ill al-Megrahi and would make a formal announcement Thursday afternoon in Edinburgh, the Scottish capital.

Sky News television reported Wednesday that al-Megrahi will be released from prison on compassionate grounds. The BBC has also previously reported that al-Megrahi would be set free on compassionate grounds, adding that his release had been expected before the end of the week. Neither network cited the source of its information.

In Washington, Obama administration officials said Scottish authorities had not formally notified them that al-Megrahi would be released. But they said the administration was working on the assumption that he would be freed. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate diplomacy involved and the sensitive nature of the case.

Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988. The airliner — which was carrying mostly American passengers to New York — blew up as it flew over Scotland. All 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when the aircraft crashed into the town of Lockerbie.

The former Libyan intelligence officer was sentenced to serve a minimum of 27 years in a Scottish prison for the crime, but a 2007 review of his case raised the prospect that al-Megrahi had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and many in Britain believe he is innocent.

Meanwhile, relations between Libya and the West have improved dramatically. Western energy companies — including Britain's BP PLC — have moved into Libya in an effort to tap the country's vast oil and gas wealth.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has lobbied for the return of al-Megrahi, an issue which took on an added sense of urgency when he was diagnosed with cancer last year. His lawyers say his condition is deteriorating.

The question of whether to release the 57-year-old al-Megrahi has divided Lockerbie families, with many in Britain in favor of setting him free, and many in the U.S. adamantly opposed.

British Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the attack, said Wednesday he would be glad to see al-Megrahi return home.

"It is right he should go home to die in dignity with his family. I believe it is our Christian duty to show mercy," he said.

But American families have largely been hostile to the idea. So too has the U.S. government. Seven U.S. senators and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have urged MacAskill not to release al-Megrahi.

"I'm totally against it. He murdered 270 people," said Paul Halsch of Perinton, New York, who lost his 31-year-old wife in the attack. "This might sound crude or blunt, but I want him returned from Scotland the same way my wife Lorraine was ... and that would be in a box."

Peter Sullivan of Akron, Ohio, whose friend and college roommate Mike Doyle died at Lockerbie, said he believed Britain was putting commercial interests before the interests of the victims' relatives.
"The interest of big oil should not be the basis of a miscarriage of justice to let a murderer of 270 people be released," Sullivan said. "If he's released on compassionate grounds, who would provide comfort and compassion to the family members?"

___

Associated Press Writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Jessica M. Pasko in Albany, New York, and Jim Hannah in Dayton, Ohio, contributed to this report.

 

[FishOuttaWater]

"I'm totally against it. He murdered 270 people," said Paul Halsch of Perinton, New York, who lost his 31-year-old wife in the attack. "This might sound crude or blunt, but I want him returned from Scotland the same way my wife Lorraine was ... and that would be in a box."

"The interest of big oil should not be the basis of a miscarriage of justice to let a murderer of 270 people be released," Peter Sullivan of Akron, Ohio, whose friend and college roommate Mike Doyle died at Lockerbie, said. "If he's released on compassionate grounds, who would provide comfort and compassion to the family members?"

Exactely... Where is the victims compassion...? :

 

[Good2Golf]

If this is based on Scottish law that someone deemed to be dying (within 3 months?), then does the corollary mean that as he approaches the end of month 3 in Libya, if he hasn't died yet, the law supports his life being ended?  that would be fair...wouldn't it?

 

[FishOuttaWater]

If he is truely guilty of the crime, 3 minutes would be too long to set him free.

Even if it was only in a wheelchair or on a strecther...  :-X

 

[tomahawk6]

Compassion for a man who was responsible for 281 deaths ? Disgusting.

 

[Larkvall]

His release was disgusting. His reception was disgusting.

Sometimes I get too pissed off and I don't know how to express myself.

 

[mariomike]

If this is based on Scottish law that someone deemed to be dying (within 3 months?), then does the corollary mean that as he approaches the end of month 3 in Libya, if he hasn't died yet, the law supports his life being ended?  that would be fair...wouldn't it?

Good question! Like the shelf life of a perishable item?
I have a question. If someone like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen's "use by" date was fast approaching, should they too receive early parole?
Personally, I wouldn't give any of them three seconds of freedom. They don't deserve it.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

3 more breaths would be 3 too many for a man guilty of the crime he was involved in. Justice perverted?

 

[1feral1]

Like many, I've watched this unfold over the past 48 hrs, and to sum up, its the most sickening thing which has happened.

In Libya, he's a hero, and was greeted as such.

Thanks to some do-gooders in Scotland, again we are precieved weak and pathetic.

Truly, there is no justice whatsoever, and I feel much sorrow for the families of the victims of those murdered on the flight, and those who perished on the ground.

What message is this sending?

OWDU

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is a counter argument, well presented in this letter to the editor which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/scottish-mercy/article1261078/

Scottish mercy

Fraser Laschinger
Ottawa

Saturday, Aug. 22, 2009

When I read the Scottish Justice Secretary's reasons for granting clemency to the only man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, I felt pride in my Scottish heritage. It would appear that a sense of charity and compassion is included in the list of Scottish virtues I learned at my late mother's knee.

While I cannot claim to be a Christian in the traditional sense, having left the church decades ago, I would note that the government of Scotland has adhered to Christian tradition. Despite the many calls for retribution and vengeance from quarters that wear their Christianity on their sleeves, Kenny MacAskill has done what Christ would have done: forgiven a sinner in his last days on this Earth.

The Bard gave us an example, from Portia’s mouth:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187

Retributive justice and the search for “a pound of flesh” are long serving relics of our culture but they are not wholly representative of it.

 

[Larkvall]

There is a counter argument, well presented in this letter to the editor which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

Well if the Scots want to be soft on terrorists as part of their culture so be it. Just don't expect me to ever travel to Scotland. Perhaps a travel advisory is in order also.

 

[mariomike]

Editorial from today's Toronto Sun:
"An insult to all victims of terror":
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2009/08/22/10560211-sun.html

"FBI director says Lockerbie bomber's release 'gives comfort to terrorists' all over the world":
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090822/world/us_lockerbie_fbi

 

[Franko]

An absolute sickening display yesterday. I can't imagine the families going through this.

Wonder how long the Brown government will last because of this debacle?

Regards

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Wonder how long the Brown government will last because of this debacle?

Regards

I don't think this has much impact on Brown's government, on way or the other. His problems are broader and deeper.

In this case, I suspect most Brits understand this is a Scottish decision, taken by its new, devolved "provincial" government. If anything Brown may be able to lay off some of the blame on to the Scottish Nationalist Party, thereby helping Labour in a few Scottish ridings.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is yet another view on the matter:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/22/david-frum-why-so-little-outcry-from-washington-on-al-megrahi.aspx

David Frum: Why so little outcry from Washington on al-Megrahi?

August 22, 2009

I smell a rat in the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.

Here's what U. S. President Barack Obama had to say about the release. "We thought it was a mistake."

In a written statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disappointed."

Does that not seem like strangely mild language to use about the release of a man convicted in the worst international terrorist attack against U. S. citizens before 9/11?

Two hundred and fifty-nine people were killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103 by a planted bomb. One hundred and eighty of them were Americans; three were Canadians. (One of those Canadians was a friend of mine, a brilliant young woman newly engaged to be married.) The details of the deaths are harrowing, including the high likelihood that many passengers were not killed instantly by the bomb but were asphyxiated by the decompression of the cabin or burned by jet fuel.

So why such a mild response to the Scottish decision?

Two speculative possibilities.

POSSIBILITY 1: THE DEAL

Al-Megrahi and an associate were brought to trial in May 2000 as part of a complex deal with the Libyan government. The U. S. and Britain agreed to drop sanctions against Libya, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of the murdered and to surrender two men identified as suspects by U. S. and U. K. intelligence.

The suspects were tried by a panel of Scottish judges at a special court convened in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted, his associate acquitted.

From the moment al-Megrahi entered a Scottish prison in March 2002, a campaign to release him gathered force. Nelson Mandela, who had helped broker the U. S.-U. K.-Libya deal, urged in June that al-Megrahi be transferred to a prison in an Islamic country. In 2007, the U. K. and Libya reached a new agreement on prisoner exchanges. British authorities denied that the agreement would apply to al-Megrahi, but in May 2009, the Libyan authorities applied for his transfer anyway. In July, al-Megrahi (now suffering from prostate cancer) applied for release on compassionate grounds. In August he was released.

Question: Did U. K. or U. S. authorities reach any bargain or tacit bargain about al-Megrahi with the Libyans at any point along this timeline? During the bargaining in the 1990s? Upon his extradition in 1999? As part of the deal to end the Libyan nuclear program in 2003?

POSSIBILITY 2: THE WRONG MAN

For years, many well-informed people in the intelligence community have doubted al-Megrahi's guilt in the Lockerbie bombing. They have argued that the bombing was the work of a Syrian based Palestinian group, the PFLP-GC, working for the government of Iran.

Among those who support the Iran-did-it theory are: (i) former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon; (ii) Robert Baer, the CIA official who worked directly on the Lockerbie case; (iii) Hans Koechler, the UN Security Council observer at al-Megrahi's trial; (iv) Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who organized the trial proceedings; (v) Dr. Jim Swire, the spokesman for the families of British Lockerbie victims who lost his own daughter aboard Pan Am Flight 103; and (vi) David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post.

The U. S. and U. K. publicly identified Libya as the guilty party in 1990. Why might Britain and the U. S. prefer to assert Libyan rather than Iranian and Syrian culpability at that time? Could it have been a thank you to Syria for joining the U. S.-U. K. Gulf War coalition against Iraq? Or was it simply less embarrassing this way? Five months before Lockerbie, a U. S. warship, the Vincennes, had mistakenly fired a missile at an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people. If Iran downed Pan Am 103, some might cite the Vincennes incident as justification or excuse.

Question: Could it be that Hillary Clinton has come to believe the "wrong man" thesis? Here's what she had to say in a televised interview with the BBC on the eve of al-Megrahi's release:

"I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime." (Italics added.)That does not sound like ringing certainty about the man's guilt, does it?

Doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt might explain the limpness of the Obama/Clinton statements about his early release. But such doubts would not excuse that limpness. If al-Megrahi is the wrong man, then there has been a miscarriage of justice. In that situation, al-Megrahi would deserve much more than release and a few quietly murmured words of "disappointment": He would deserve pardon, apology and compensation.

But if al-Megrahi is the right man, then what has just happened in Scotland is an appalling outrage -- and the Obama administration's mealy-mouthed response to that outrage is a disgrace.

©David Frum
dfrum@aei.org

For information/consideration, without comment.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen is yet another point of view on the “compassionate release” of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, this one with comment because I find it a little less coherent than many others:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/grave+injustice/1921237/story.html

A grave act of injustice
 
By David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen
August 23, 2009 5:01 AM

That there is justice to be had in this world, I cannot doubt. But more and more we must look for it from nature, because it will not be available through our legal systems. I write from much firsthand experience, into which I will not and should not go, simply because it is firsthand and personal.

And because the phenomenon to which I refer is not ultimately particular and local, but civilizational. One must put up a fight where one can, for arbitrary injustice is something that we must, in justice, oppose. It is especially important to stand up for other victims of judicial miscarriage, whenever some good can be achieved by doing so. But practically, we must realize that by abandoning the explicitly Christian moral and spiritual foundations of western society, our "betters" have turned western concepts of justice upside down.

Consider, if my reader has the heart, a Scottish judicial decision this past week, permitting Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, former Libyan intelligence agent, to return home on compassionate grounds after serving eight years of a 27-year minimum sentence.

Rather than speak for myself, let me quote instead the winged words of a friend who is a former soldier: "I just heard Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill explain his reasons for releasing one of the Lockerbie bombers. If 11 of my citizens had died on the ground (along with 259 other nationals), and my prisoner hadn't coughed up the name of his boss who gave the order, I could not be compassionate. My prisoner would die alone in a faraway land like so many of our great citizens have done before and do today.

"That makes me Old Testament," he supposes.

The use of the very term "compassionate" in the Scottish decision is two-edged. While it does, indeed, spit on the graves of the bomber's victims, and in the faces of their survivors, it simultaneously infers that by refusing "compassion" opponents of the decision are unjust. Here we enter into the insanity of "moral relativism" and "moral equivalence" -- recently on exhibit in tears shed ignominiously for the inmates of Guantanamo.

We reveal, almost everywhere that compassion is invoked, the fact that we no longer have a viable conception of justice. For in the conception we once had, "compassion" had no part.

The operative term was "mercy," and the idea behind it was radically different from the idea behind compassion. While I am fairly sure that "compassion" has an important place in a Hindu or Buddhist moral order -- and a place there I will not lightly dismiss -- I am also fairly sure it does not have a place in the ancient Hebrew, or Greek moral orders, or in any that can be plausibly presented as Christian. (All learned arguments to the contrary to be patiently considered.)

Mercy has tempered justice, in our western tradition. Note that construction: mercy is not a part of justice, it is "another thing." There are circumstances in which justice may allow us to be merciful, but "compassion" would not be one of them. If the man is ill, we might be so merciful as to treat him, on the argument that no additional physical suffering was part of his sentence.

Compassion is not something restricted to humans. It exists, most certainly, among many of the animals in the world of nature (a point I touched upon recently in this space).

Such Buddhist texts as I have read and pondered suggest that it is a quality of intellection: that, to the extent one is dealing with a "higher" animal, one is dealing with a mind that is capable of grasping the independent existence, and therefore the potential interests, of "the other."

Paradoxically, this means we should look for compassion more in crows and ravens; owls and eagles; monkeys and apes; dolphins, whales, and octopodes. They "reason" in light of the existence of the other, and even if that other should be their prey, they show an intelligent concern to keep it in the dark about its fate, and to despatch it efficiently.

There are also forms of "kindliness" on exhibit in nature, at the higher end of this compassion. A good Buddhist aspires to the highest possible benignity towards his fellow creatures, human and the higher inhuman. The Jains take this further. And this is all very interesting if our subject is comparative religion.

But today it is "justice," which, in our civilization, was known to be something sharp and hard. Justice is necessary to rectify injustice. The man who intentionally kills many unknown to him, in order to make a political statement, has committed a grave act of injustice, for which an equal and opposite act of justice is required. Justice, not retribution: for a desire for revenge should no more come into a just judgment, than a desire for compassion.

The punishment "should fit the crime." That is for judge and jury to determine. Eight years for the murder of hundreds does not fit the crime.

David Warren's column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

This columnist goes waaaaay of the intellectual track when he tries to tie justice to religion. Justice is a universal value which exists completely and totally free of any and all religious interference. No religion is more or less “just” than any other; religion and justice are unrelated.

There is a famous story from the Algerian War. The French had captured a rebel leader – a man they knew, with about 99.99% certainty, had led a donkey laden with explosives into a Algiers square filled with (mostly) Europeans and then exploded his bomb. They were equally sure he organized other similar attacks; they were pretty sure one was planned for that very day, a Sunday. As they were about to subject him to some pretty “firm” interrogation he asked: “How are we different? Your airplanes bombed the village of ________; their point of aim was the market square; dozens of women and children were killed. I have no bombing planes; I only have donkeys. But I also use the square as my point of aim. So how – except that you are rich and I am poor – how are we different?”

Warren says: ”The man who intentionally kills many unknown to him, in order to make a political statement, has committed a grave act of injustice.” Perhaps that’s true. If it is then it may say something about, of I don’t know, Winston Churchill and FDR and Barak Obama. I think Warren is out to lunch.

Finally, justice is totally manmade – just like the gods in whose “names” it is too often dispensed. Justice, equal justice, consistently and lawfully administered justice, is one of those institutions that I insist are more important to democracy than elections.

 

[Larkvall]

There is a famous story from the Algerian War. The French had captured a rebel leader – a man they knew, with about 99.99% certainty, had led a donkey laden with explosives into a Algiers square filled with (mostly) Europeans and then exploded his bomb. They were equally sure he organized other similar attacks; they were pretty sure one was planned for that very day, a Sunday. As they were about to subject him to some pretty “firm” interrogation he asked: “How are we different? Your airplanes bombed the village of ________; their point of aim was the market square; dozens of women and children were killed. I have no bombing planes; I only have donkeys. But I also use the square as my point of aim. So how – except that you are rich and I am poor – how are we different?”

I think the critical difference with the story above and the Lockerbie case is that no one has ever claimed responsibility for the act. Was it Libya or Iran or a host of other possibilities. It is like punishing a dog without the dog understanding what it did wrong. It is not about making a statement on how a richer country unjustly killed some other citizens. The silence means it was only about revenge killing.

 

[mariomike]

I think the critical difference with the story above and the Lockerbie case is that no one has ever claimed responsibility for the act. Was it Libya or Iran or a host of other possibilities. It is like punishing a dog without the dog understanding what it did wrong. It is not about making a statement on how a richer country unjustly killed some other citizens. The silence means it was only about revenge killing.

I agree. I wanted to reply to the donkey anecdote, but I think you summed up my opinion nicely.

 

[tomahawk6]

al Megrahi may not have been terminally ill after all ......

 

[dustinm]

al Megrahi may not have been terminally ill after all ......

Care to elaborate? He was seen by British doctors in a British prison. No Intelligence Service in the world can fake an X-ray taken by someone else