Lockerbie Bomber Released...

[Dark Hellion]

[quote="NecronLord"]
So? Of course our justice will be imperfect; nothing is 100% efficient. It is a principle, informed by a number of social objectives (revenge, deterrance[sic], etc etc) that is to be striven for, not something anyone claims to have perfected.{/quote]

Justice has nothing to do with revenge or deterrence though. Those are legal issues, designed for the betterment of society. Justice isn't even always good for society. If a child molester is a brilliant general who can defeat your fascist neighbors justice and society will be at loggerheads. This was the whole point I was trying to make, people throw out words like injustice to describe this when justice hardly even enters into most countries "Justice Systems". Justice is a hugely abstract concept and we have often sacrificed it in the name of society, which is a good thing as a truly just society would be incredibly dystopic given basic human psychology. There is no god sitting in the clouds with a sniper rifle ready to blow the heads off murders as they leave their crime and such a concept should be treated with higher regard then saying it is some great injustice that a dying man not be punished for a few more months. His agonizing death should be justice enough, the rest is window dressing.

As for the second part, as it is a bit large to quote, I do not think anyone who has seen some of my arguments with Mr. Wong will disagree that I do not give much value to individual life. Much like you I am spiteful and vindictive in how I see punishment as being meted out. But just because I think that many criminals should be taken behind the woodshed and given the old yeller treatment does not make me incapable of seeing the values of mercy and compassion. Society should hold itself to a standard that it can say, "we are powerful enough to be merciful." Societies should not cater to those of us who are spiteful because there will always be the person who thinks we should chop the hands of thieves or gouge out the eyes of peeping toms. Societies will be judged by how they treat those who do not fit in, and hur-hur toughguy mentalities of being tough on crime have shown themselves to be almost universally failures. You can never hang enough people or imprison enough to ever deter the desperate, the crazy or the arrogant from committing crimes. But if you incapable of showing compassion and mercy then you get what the U.S. has, which is a system that has bred a caste of criminals. A whole subculture that will forever live as criminals because all they know is the cycle.

So yes, there is a lot of emotive subjective language in how the victims could feel, but that does not erase the fact that forgiveness of sin is a hugely motivating part of the human psyche. Religion has used this for thousands of years. Vengeance comes and goes quickly, but somehow we seem to really get off on the idea that we are better people because we forgive sins. Frankly, I don't know how or why it works, but you can look at a lot of big events were large numbers of people got killed and after the initial bloodrage always come the forgiveness. In fact, we consider it a mark of primitive culture to keep blood feuds going. For whatever silly reason our brains are wired up in, mercy seems to bring catharsis.

Really, all the talk of justice and victim suffering are a smokescreen to give emotive language to a political discussion. People want to argue whether it was good or bad politics to do this. But that would sound incredibly crass to the actual victims, so we pretend we are really advocating about them. But honestly we don't give a shit. So we'll keep pouring on the crap because it makes us like like we are good people. I am not that good of a person, but I at least have the dignity not to use justice, mercy and compassion as simple buzzwords and tools to disguise some ulterior motive.

[Master of Ossus]

Fulfillment of sentencing has nothing to do with Justice. Justice is reserving ones just deserts. Someone who actually murders 270 people deserves a slow death filled with suffering. Like cancer... oh, wait.

Justice is a social institution, though. We cannot control who gets cancer with any significant specificity; we can control who we imprison.

Sorry, I just sunk the justice angle for the don't releasers. Next time I should be careful before I actually think, people could look foolishly vindictive.

People throw justice around with such casual carelessness. Justice in its purest form is an unstoppable meting out of equity of consequence to action. Humans are such poor creatures as rationality and possess such limited senses for the epistemological that all justice we seek to perform is really just caricature. So we met out vengeance and hatred and call it justice. It is a good thing we have compassion and kindness to balance it out.

Do you have any actual arguments other than to endlessly repeat your original premise without modification?

We don't get anything after this, we only get to be judged by what we do, and showing basic human compassion for a dying man, no matter how vile, is a far more worthy action that some penis sizing sadism of punishing him for a few more months.

Even when he deserves more punishment?

As for the families of those killed, they will hurt. They will hurt with every airplane they see, every time they see a terrorist attack on TV, even when the man dies they will still hurt. The pain of losing a loved one doesn't go away. It will fade in time, though. When it does, don't you think they will feel better knowing that they showed themselves to be better humans than the people who killed their loved ones?

No, I don't. And evidently a number of them are unhappy about the decision to let him go, even though this is years after the fact. Moreover, why aren't you showing any compassion for their pain?

If you want a moral victory this is it for them. They have proven themselves to have some spark of humanity that those who hurt them do not have, and this is far more empowering than some petty show of physical strength to encage a dying man.

Do you have any actual arguments other than to repeat your premise without modification or elaboration? We get that you think that (somehow) people with cancer are immune to the justice system and should therefore invariably be released, but no one shares that view of justice, particularly since releasing this individual runs counter to essentially every goal of a justice system.

[Master of Ossus]

Why not? I mean, yes, block him from getting back into the trading market, but I don't really give a damn whether he spends the last two weeks before dying of groin cancer or whatever in a prison or not. His situation sucks far beyond my meager power to add or detract, so who cares?

First of all, that's bullshit: of course we can make his situation suck more (ask any hospice worker). Second, if it doesn't matter at all, why let him go? Compassion relies upon our ability to ameliorate the suffering of others--if we have no mechanism for alleviating his suffering then by definition we cannot exhibit compassion.

[NecronLord]

Justice has nothing to do with revenge

Oh yes it does. Revenge is the basic form of justice. You yourself were just talking about how "Justice in its purest form is an unstoppable meting out of equity of consequence to action." That is, in other words, 1:1 revenge (though presumably you mean state-revenge here).

or deterrence though.

It most certainly does.

Those are legal issues, designed for the betterment of society.

And Justice is, in the context we're talking about, a social construct to regulate behaviour; rather than a crude eye-for-eye mechanism.

which is a good thing as a truly just society would be incredibly dystopic given basic human psychology.

Which is why deterrance is part of any developed system of justice. Regulating behaviour is no good unless people respect and fear the consequences of crime.

His agonizing death should be justice enough, the rest is window dressing.

I see my specific note to remember that I approve of his release passed you by.

incapable of seeing the values of mercy and compassion.

And? I don't think this is a bad thing in a justice system, in general; while pardons and releases are valuable for exceptional circumstances, I do not think that a formal policy of 'mercy' for dying prisoners is really that beneficial except to the prisoners themselves.

But if you incapable of showing compassion and mercy then you get what the U.S. has, which is a system that has bred a caste of criminals. A whole subculture that will forever live as criminals because all they know is the cycle.

You seriously think that's what it is? Compassionate release is alien to most countries, and they don't have that. I could go on at length about why the US has such a thing, but you know that's a topic for another thread.

So yes, there is a lot of emotive subjective language in how the victims could feel, but that does not erase the fact that forgiveness of sin is a hugely motivating part of the human psyche. Religion has used this for thousands of years.

Translation, 'Religion has used the promise of reward in the hereafter to get people to forgive for thousands of years, 'cos it don't come easily without.

Vengeance comes and goes quickly, but somehow we seem to really get off on the idea that we are better people because we forgive sins. Frankly, I don't know how or why it works, but you can look at a lot of big events were large numbers of people got killed and after the initial bloodrage always come the forgiveness.

Name one.

In fact, we consider it a mark of primitive culture to keep blood feuds going.

Blood fueds are destructive and endlessly reciprocal. Application of a legal system is not (or if it is, you're doing it wrong.)

Really, all the talk of justice and victim suffering are a smokescreen to give emotive language to a political discussion. People want to argue whether it was good or bad politics to do this.

I don't. Which is probably why you don't see me around here often. I am here purely because the morality of it interests me.

I am not that good of a person, but I at least have the dignity not to use justice, mercy and compassion as simple buzzwords and tools to disguise some ulterior motive.

Nonsense. I have said exactly what I mean: I care about the likelyhood (which I believe is very strong) of corruption and wrongful imprisonment in this incident, and the wider matter of how just a policy of compassion is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

ask yourself would you want society to be compassionate to a person who participated in an act that killed hundreds including your family member

Because that person's lack of compassion should be the baseline for our treatment of them? Yes, I do want a society to be capable of showing compassion to someone who is incapable of it - because that is what spearates us from them.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. How does not showing this man compassion make us anything like him? He made the choices that put himself in that position he was not a random target.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There is a substantial amount of documentation available, and while I doubt anyone here has the time to read it all, we do have access to Dr Köchler's rather damning statements on the trial. As a UN observer, we can hopefully accept his neutrality.

International Progress Organisation Report on the Lockerbie Trial and Appeal – this is one of a number of statements he’s made, of course, and many other items of documentation are available on that website, but this one specifically highlights the intimidating long roll of serious problems with the trial and appeal. Some are less critical (for example, "The circumstances of detention of the two accused at Her Majesty's Prison Zeist were in conformity with national legal requirements and international legal and human rights standards.")

It's extremely interesting reading (and impressively brief). In it, he pretty much tears the entire case to shreds.

The reason I keep bringing up Dr Köchler's comments on the trial is as follows: The function of UN/International Observers in matters like this is in order to verify and attest to the neutrality of proceedings, and that justice is being served by the trial. In a case where these observers claim that the trial was conducted improperly, particularly in as damning a way as this, the witness to the proper conduct of the trial has essentially declared that it was improperly run. In this respect, I think the convicted Al-Megrahi is entitled to more than an appeal: an appeal has a presumption of guilt. He deserves a re-trial where he would be innocent until proven guilty, because the original trail was conducted in a grossly improper and unfair manner.

While Dr Köchler is only human, and of course, fallible, his appointment as a UN/IPO observer gave him the task of reporting on the trial; and his report and later statements are unequivocally negative in almost all respects about the way the trial was run. Instead, his comments in his capacity reporting for the United Nations have essentially been ignored.

That is interesting. Thank you. In this case I am OK with him being released early due to the circumstances behind the trial. However, I'm still going to continue the discussion regarding the idea of a mass murdering terrorist being released early due to a terminal disease.

Returning to your argument, I'd accept that in general, compassionate release is an unjust lenience – indeed, as Mike (IIRC) has pointed out here on occasion, Mercy (or in this case, compassion) and Justice are not only not the same thing, they are antithetical: Mercy is inherently unjust, as it requires an undeserved leniency from pity or similar reasons. When one talks about compassion in such matters, one is abandoning the path of Justice, and such things should require exceptional reasons.

I would however, take issue with your emphasis on the victims’ feelings – I know that if any of my immediate relatives had died I would be satisfied with little less than the electric chair (I am, I must admit, rather vindictive) for those I thought responsible: in pursuit of closure for victims, one is essentially playing to a crowd. While it is a legitimate argument against lenient sentences for criminals, I wouldn’t rate it as a particularly important part of the sentancing process - otherwise, do those criminals whose victims are dead and have no one to mourn for them, get let off? That is of course, an exxaggerated example, but in caving to the pressure of the wronged, one sacrifices 'equal treatment under the law.'

This is the point though. The state sentenced this man, not the victims. So, when the state turns around and shortens this mans sentence they have betrayed the trust of the victims.

In the specific case of Al-Megrahi, though, given the sheer corruption of his trial (as an example, his lawyers were appointed by the Lybian government, without any consultation of himself, or another, refusal of said lawyers to employ certain evidence in his defence) makes me consider it invalid – therefore, Justice is not served by his conviction and imprisonment, and I find myself having no problem with his being freed – obviously, this is going to distress people who believed he did it, but as the trial was conducted in a corrupt manner, I would say his actual conviction is invalid.

Of course, it’s a dubious and back-door release (and rather too late to be of any use to the man) but I’d not say it’s actually immoral in this instance.

As a general policy, I’m not impressed with 'compassionate release' but in this case, I'd say given the wrongful imprisonment already endured, it's not morally wrong.

I agree.

[Big Orange]

I don't believe in a death penalty when in a sober state of mind and nothing will bring back those 270 people. The thirst for vengeance led to the conviction of one person who was most likely innocent anyway and could not have acted alone if he was partially responsible. Iranian personnel were more likely the sole or primary culprits.

I see this sordid affair as Westminster getting at the SNP and Scottish independence. See:

AUGUST 26, 2009, 7:24 P.M. ET
Britain and the Lockerbie Bomber

London officials seem to have been involved in the decision to release Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi.
By CON COUGHLIN

When former Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi to give up his pursuit of nuclear weapons in late 2003, Britain received world-wide praise for a remarkable diplomatic coup.

The plaudits heaped on the British government then stand in marked contrast to the international opprobrium its latest dealings with the Gadhafi clan are attracting.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government says the shameful decision to return Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi—convicted of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988—to Libya was taken solely on compassionate grounds. His release from prison last week was not, the government says, part of some secret deal between London and Tripoli.

Megrahi's doctors claim he's suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has only a few months to live. Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill insists his decision to release Megrahi was based on the requirements of Scottish law, which allows for terminally ill prisoners to be released from custody regardless of the magnitude of their crimes. Although it is part of the United Kingdom, Scotland enjoys its own justice system.

But even if the Scottish government acted solely in accordance with its legal obligations, strong rumors persist that Megrahi's return had more to do with the prospect of Britain enjoying lucrative trade deals with Libya than the state of the convicted murderer's health. Suspicions that there is more to this episode than the British government will admit center on the role Seif al-Islam Gadhafi has played in the affair. Gadhafi's second son, whose name translates as "sword of Islam," is widely regarded as the heir apparent.

Educated at the London School of Economics, Mr. Ghadafi claims to entertain no political ambitions and says his only official role is that of running a Tripoli-based family charitable foundation. But in Libya he is increasingly seen as the power behind the throne. He is also well known to Britain's political and intelligence establishment for the key role he is credited with playing in persuading his father to end Libya's decades-long international isolation by giving up its weapons of mass destruction.

For years, Ghadafi's regime was deemed by Washington to be one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. It also had a nuclear weapons program, though it maintained the pretense to visiting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency that its nuclear activities were purely peaceful—a fiction with which the agency concurred.

Then came the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, which removed Saddam Hussein from power. This had a profound impact on Col. Ghadafi, who, at his second son's prompting, secretly passed a letter to Downing Street indicating he wanted to come in from the diplomatic cold and end Libya's status as a pariah nation.

The British government reacted swiftly to the Gadhafi clan's overture. There followed a series of lengthy discussions between Seif al-Islam and Mark Allen, then head of counter-terrorism at Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), that were conducted within the elegant confines of London's Travellers Club. The result was Mr. Blair's triumphant announcement in late December 2003 that Col. Ghadhafi had made a "historic" decision to scrap the nuclear-weapons program whose existence he'd always denied.

Fast forward six years, and many of those who were central to the negotiations in 2003 continue to feature prominently in Anglo-Libyan affairs. Sir Mark Allen, to give him his present title, is now a senior executive with the British oil giant BP. BP is keen to develop its oil exploration business in Libya, which is said to be sitting on 44 billion barrels of untapped oil reserves.

Seif al-Islam Ghadafi, meanwhile, owns a $16 million mansion in London's northern suburbs and maintains close links with Britain's leading business figures. Earlier this summer he was a guest at the villa owned by the Rothschild banking family on the Greek island of Corfu. Another guest was Lord Peter Mandelson, Britain's business secretary and a close ally of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Lord Mandelson has confirmed that, during their stay at the villa, Mr. Ghadafi raised the issue of Megrahi's release. He insists he personally had nothing to do with releasing Megrahi. Nevertheless, Seif al-Islam Ghadafi remarked on Libyan television (after Megrahi's release) that, "In all commercial contracts for oil and gas with Britain [Megrahi] was always on the negotiating table."

Other evidence suggesting the British government, rather than its weaker Scottish partner, was the driving force behind Megrahi's release has emerged in the form of a letter Ivor Lewis, a junior minister at the British Foreign Office, wrote to Mr. MacAskill on Aug. 3. In that letter, parts of which have been leaked to the British press, Mr. Lewis tells Mr. MacAskill that there is no legal reason not to accede to Libya's request to transfer Megrahi into its custody under the terms of an agreement reached between Mr. Blair and Gadhafi senior in 2004 to strengthen U.K.-Libyan diplomatic ties. This agreement was negotiated in the wake of the historic nuclear deal.

According to a Scottish government source quoted in the British press over the weekend (who says he's seen the entire letter), Mr. Lewis wrote, "I hope on this basis you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application [for Megrahi's release]."

Certainly the involvement of both Lord Mandelson and Mr. Lewis in this sorry affair seems to undermine Mr. Brown's claim on Tuesday that he "had no role" in the decision to release Megrahi from prison. Mr. Brown's government still has many questions to answer about one of the least edifying episodes in his nation's hitherto impressive history of confronting international terrorism.

Mr. Coughlin is the executive foreign editor of the Daily Telegraph in London and the author of "Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam" (Ecco, 2009).

The Wall Street Journal