Lockerbie Bomber is free...
 

...and it makes me want to puke.

This guy killed 270 people, and because he has terminal cancer, he is set free. A life sentence should be just that, a life sentence. He should be rotting away in a rotten cell, left to die alone. He DOES NOT deserve the company of his family and friends. HE DOES NOT DESERVE a flight to his homeland. He deserves to die alone, with no one by his side to comfort him.

What a fucking travesty. Talk about pouring salt on the wounds of the families affected by Pan Am 103's bombing. How would you feel if your son/daughter/father/mother/etc... killer was set free because he had cancer?

I say that we arrange for a party, for whoever kills this fucker before cancer does him in. We'll greet them at the airport, and wave flags, and everything.

Lockerbie Bomber Freed Amidst Outrage | keyc.tv
Lockerbie Bomber Being Released On 'Compassionate' Grounds - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR

Additional Spam:
Why are the scots being "compassionate" toward him... he sure as fuck wasn't towards them.

"Compassion" doesn't mean "an eye for an eye", chuckles. Some of us like to set our ethical baseline a little higher than that of a murderer.

"Somebody should murder that murderer" is the least rational idea in history, but it certainly crops up often enough.

But letting him go because he is dying is just as irrational. Did he show as much compassion for those of which he killed?

Whether he is or is not personally a good person (and I'm not saying he is) it does not mitigate the responsibility of the rest of us to be good people. That was my point about "an eye for an eye". The function of criminal justice isn't revenge or vindictiveness: it's public safety and rehabilitation. Keeping a dying man locked in a cell when he can't possibly pose any more threat to anyone is, yes, petty and vengeful.

What use is a life sentence on a man that God himself has put on death row?

I see your point - but why does he deserve to be surrounded by his family and friends when he dies? His victims surely didn't get that.

If I kill hundreds of innocent people, do I get a bye if I get cancer? And what's to stop me from strapping TNT to my chest and going out in a blaze of glory if I do?

The reason we have a legal system is because it is meant to be unbiased and uninterested in things like revenge.

As a single person, you can stand there and say he hurt people, so we should hurt him back. But luckily there is a whole system in place that makes sure your petty bullshit stays within your own confines. You can hate him all you want, but the system doesn't. That's how it's meant to work.

Hammuravi is overrated, Locke. I'm with Pang, I think "better than a murderer" should be the lowest you set your bar. I'm more horrified by your fervor for this man who did nothing to you personally than I am by his being set free.

I'm sure the families feel the same way there Deni.

Let me know if your loved ones get murdered, and the killer is set free because he's sick. I'm sure you'll be fine with that too.

Locke's opinion isn't in the minority, fellas. You are. The great Obama himself says the release was a mistake.

Now, what would suck is if this man were to have a miraculous recovery. It's happened before - Nick Leeson, the trader dude who bankrupted Barings Bank, was released early from Singapore on compassionate grounds (colon cancer), but he survived.

Of course, I'm not saying that blowing 270 people up is the same as losing $1.4 billion. The vengeful part of me wishes the man WILL die of prostate cancer within three months.

Of course I'd be fucking pissed. I'd want him dead.

And that's why the system is there.

Thanks for proving my point while missing it entirely yourself.

If anybody out there feels that vengeful, truly, I imagine killing a sick old man will be rather easy. But that's their decision, not the court's, not the government's. Theirs.

Beware of the temptations of the evil Satan! The Bible tells us we must forgive the sins of our brothers.

Matthew 6:14-16
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Colossians 3:13
Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.

Let us hold hands and pray

You'd be pissed exactly - so how is it fair - even unbiased fair that a murderer gets set free because he is sick and going to die. Why should he be allowed to die with his family around him, when those he killed were not. Why does he deserve anything better then to die in jail. Why does he get a get-out-of-jail-free card because he's sick? Would you feel the same way to the 9/11 hijackers?

Yeah. Yeah I would.

And he doesn't deserve it. He doesn't deserve to die alone in a rotting cell, either. Because you or I aren't fit to make judgment calls like that. So in this case the government erred on the side of caring, forgiveness and being the better man.

Those bastards. Clearly he hates them for his freedom.

(keep proving my point for me, though. It's going great.)

The system is meant to punish, and reform people who have broken the law - Other then a few select circumstances, I do not see anyone in the system worse then this man. Do they get "compassionate" terms of release?

When was the last time the Scots released a muderer on "compassionate" terms? Why do they not level their justice evenly? Isn't that the point you were trying to make? That noone in the system is special?

LEGAL PRECEDENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Um, people get released for compassionate terms all the time. Usually because the hospital has better care for them than the prison does.

So, uh, yeah.

Wanna swing again there, Angry Johnny?

You can't punish or reform this man, because he's going to die, very likely before the year is out. There is literally no value to holding him except as a propaganda tool to assuage the vengeful spirits of —

well.

And, please: he's not going to make a miraculous recovery. He has prostate cancer. In LIBYA.

Be sure to show up at his funeral then, and celebrate his life. I'm sure the 270 families will be there as well cheering him on.

So deni - when did the scots do it last? When I watched the press conference, he skirted around that subject all the time - didn't give any firm answers. Only that "it's based on an individual basis." Should be a blanket though - don't you think? Nothing individual about it?

I understand there is no chance for reform - but why reward him with a free expenses paid trip back home to die around his family - what in his life did he ever do to deserve that?

Because we're better than a man who kills hundreds of people for no really good reason. We show compassion, understanding and the will to forgive despite being provoked.

Because we aim to be better than his actions were.

But please, continue to spout hate and rage when it furthers nothing and accomplishes less.

His dying in prison of cancer points out how truly intolerant the West can be. Released, he's far less a martyr and less of a propaganda tool for those that would applaud his prior actions.

Even on a purely practical basis, Locke: U rong.

You said it yourself, Locke.

We have to pay to send him back to Libya, because if we just opened the prison gates and let him wander around Glasgow you'll just be giving the police another murder to solve within the week.

And, let's face it— we think of prison as an awful place to be, but I have to imagine that the prisons in a country that would let you free out of compassion has to be a nicer place to stay than nearly anywhere in Libya. There's really no logic to assuming that he'll be better off in any concrete way.

Yes, you're right - his release was not a propaganda tool at all...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...delbas-002.jpg

Additional Spam:
I'm pretty sure he's not in prison in Libya - far from it actually. He was welcomed as a hero.

Um. We said it -was- a propaganda tool? Please learn logic, reason and politics before posting next.

I assume we'll see you in about six years.

It's cool.

I'll wait.

If he died in his cell, I guarantee you there would be much less hoopla about it then him being released. And you'd be an idiot to deny that.

Look at when McVeigh died - any big deal about that? Not particularly - defiantly not something that world leaders condemned/applauded. Now if he had been released on compassionate charges?

Why is it that justice is never dispensed fairly?

Well, yes, but his "hero status" such as it is appears to be based on the notion that he's a scapegoat rather than any open declaration that killing Americans is totally rad.

So he's just their Mumia, really.

And, of course, like Mumia, he's probably guilty as sin, buuuuut you can kind of see their point. If you squint.

But yes. Even if we assume this is a move purely done as a propaganda move to improve British-Libyan relations, that's fine. The upside of making an entire nation slightly less irritated with you well outweighs the pouty indignation of people STILL CRYING over the dead of two decades ago.

No amount of imprisoning a dying man will bring their sons and daughters back, and if there's even a slim chance that freeing him will reduce the chance of future bombings, holy shit, jump on that goddamn train immediately.

I don't care who he killed - Americans, Brits, Scots, whoever - it shouldn't make a hair of difference.

And what is releasing him going to do to stop future attacks? He was pretty much rewarded a flight home to be with his family as he died - Pretty decent reward for 270 murders.

The fact you don't understand how showing a populace that thinks you're cruel and hateful a bit of compassion is good for public relations just proves what a hateful, small-minded person you, yourself, are.

Oh god. He got to go home just before he died of a painful disease! Clearly there was no punishment handed out.*




*please note decades in prison and having cancer do not count as bad things to happen to a person in the world of Locke.

You're a hair's breadth away from being one of the "They hate us for our Freedom" ignorants, Locke. What the fuck.

Deni,

I've had family suffer and pass from that terrible disease, yet it still does not change what that man did in his life. A murderer with cancer, is still a murderer, whichever way you slice it. If you have sympathy for him, fine - I'll let you explain that to the families of his victims - it shouldn't be a problem right?

I wouldn't be able to do it. Maybe I'm hateful and small minded - but I couldn't tell a mother that it was OK her son's murderer was given a free ride home to die with his family - when her son wasn't given that at all.

A life sentence is just that - a life sentence. Why should he be released because he is sick and going to die anyways? Why should he be allowed a hero's welcome as he returns home, a triumphant murderer.The only public relations this did was make the man a hero, and he will die a hero and a martyr, more so then if he had died in Scotland.

Hey Locke, since when did those 270 families appoint you as their spokesperson? I must have missed the press release.

When did Deni get appointed as al-Megrahi's? What's your point?

And are you okay with going to this man's family and telling him he has to die in prison, alone and without proper care because you're mad?

I'm not defending him, I'm defending the logic in being decent rather than spiteful.

But you're cool with the hate, so good on you.

Letting a man free does not make him "more of a martyr"

What has been done defuses his status as a martyr.

You are using the word in a manner precisely opposite to that of its actual meaning.

He will be a "hero" until he dies, at which point he will be forgotten since nothing terribly awful really happened to him. His candidacy for martyrdom has been revoked.

The whole point of martyrdom is to die painfully at the hands of your enemies so the survivors have something to get good and mad about.

Nice skirt around the question - the scots should hire you to their PR!

And I would be fine with it - their son did wrong, he doesn't deserve a reprieve. Just because he's got cancer doesn't take away any horror away from his crime. So why does he get a reprieve when others don't?

I'm not all hateful anyways - just pisses me off when I see such a travesty of justice.

Okay there Hammuravi.

You keep acting like you're not the crazy, vicious one here.

Again... Won't answer the question.

Because you miss the point.

The suffering of a few hundred families is sad, but it isn't what we base a system of justice on. Why do you think the American version has her blindfolded, you fucking twat?

You don't get it, Locke. You haven't gotten it since word one. I'm not going to continue to make valid point after valid point, only to have you ignore it in the search for your own misguided definition of justice and right. If you want to follow Hammuravi, go for it. But don't be shocked when I tell you you're a barbaric, backwards twit.

I see I've gotten a rise out of you - and you still refuse to answer the question - leads me to believe that you couldn't tell the families what you are telling me. Shows you something right there about yourself now doesn't it?

At least I'm honest about what I say.

Last time, moron.

I'm personally outraged at his actions. I think he's a terrible human being. But the system is there so our personal feelings don't take precedent over being a decent human being because of our clouded rationality and emotional reactions.

You're right, though. It shows me I'm able to comprehend logic and make informed, reasonable, rational decisions while you are a two year old moving between emotional outrage and pouting.

Good job, hero. You're an honest ignorant child. Just like my year old nephew.

Do you spit up on your high chair, too? Feel free to also be proud of that accomplishment.

Again... No answers... Hypocrite.

I see you understand the word hypocrite as much as you understand the word martyr.

You've gotten a rise and dishonest answer out of exactly nobody, here, Locke.

So you're arguing based on that? Tell you what, go look up the term "emotional appeal" and get back to us.

For some reason, when I hear him talking about this, I think of people convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg. And remember that several of those convicted, including two sentenced to life imprisonment, were released due to ill health.

Meh - I told you all how I feel, and why I feel it - I understand that nothing I could say could change your minds. It's just the way it works online.

I'm heading to bed now - gotta fly in the morning. Ciao.

And we told you why what you feel is small minded and has nothing to do with justice.

Feel free to "feel" your way into reading a few books before the next time you talk. Truthiness is funny but not at all applicable in the real world.

It's not the lack of precedent for his position that bothers me as much as the notion that prisoners should receive treatment dependent entirely on the opinion of the families of victims.

"Mrs. Harris, new DNA tests have shown that Gerry Woods could not have possibly killed your daughter, therefore we're freeing him."

"Well, that's bullshit and it makes me mad!"

"Oh, well, in that case. Lock him back up, boys!"

I agree with this utterly and completely. There's no bullshit, it's straight down and freed from human emotion.

And for this exact reason, I don't see why he should go free all of a sudden. Somehow 'care' got involved.



EDIT:
Why was he just freed?

No it didn't. Politics did.

See Pang's argument concerning martyrdom.

Then maybe too much softness has gone into politics for my taste, I don't know.

Hey Locke. Are you comfortable telling this member of the victims families your position?

Lockerbie bombing: victim's father to sue - Telegraph

Seems he's pretty cool with it, son.

There's a similar catastrophe mentioned in that article – Iran Air Flight 655, which was shot down by the US Navy in 1988, killing 290 people including 66 children. Obviously, the gunman on the USS Vincennes should be in jail for the rest of his life, yes? He should be murdered for that, yes?

Well, he wasn't. Everyone on the boat got ribbons of commendation. The air-warfare commander got a medal. And you're angry this chump's dying in fresh air, Locke? Really?

Actually it's Obama who is in the minority. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ot-smugdog.gif

Because he's black, see. Therefore nothing he says counts

because he's black

I'm guessing you're fairly unfamiliar with the British legal system and that's fair enough, you've had no reason to be familiar with it up until now but over here, life very rarely means life. There are only a handful of people serving true life sentences over here and those that are are generally only doing so for their own protection from the public. Life here means 20 years with the possibility of parole in some cases after 10. Also, letting terminally ill people out early happens pretty often. Ronnie Biggs was let out early just last month for example and he killed a bunch of people, stole millions of pounds then fucked off to Rio for most of his life, only coming back to take advantage of our medical care.

As I understand it, he wasn't cheered off the plane because he killed a load of Merkins, he was cheered because the general feeling in Libya is that he never did it and was provided as a scapegoat by the Libyan government to appease ours and your government. I remember there being a fair bit of cheering when Clinton freed those two journalists from North Korea but I bet the North Korean public weren't too impressed. These women had been found guilty in their courts after all and were as guilty in the North Korean legal system as Lockerbie boy was in ours.

If you think that our legal system is so infallible as to preclude every sending anyone home then by the same standards, evey time the Iranians capture and convict some US military personel or the Koreans lock up a journalist, they should stay to face their punishment.

Prisoners are released home all the time all over the world and it works both ways. You're being incredibly blinkered and naive on a number of levels here.

Were you not outraged when Mozzam Begg was released from Guantanamo back to the UK? He was charged with terrorist offences too and there was a fair bit of celebrating when he landed in the UK. I'm not sure he was even charged with anything actually, I think you guys just locked him up for a few years and flew him to Pakistan to be tortured but never quite made it to court.

Do you not see how these things are very similar events? Can you not appreciate the massive double standards in your stance here?

MAN, FUCK. Shin, one of these days I'd like to click on one of these long, horribly drawn out and boring as fuck threads and not see your name pop up with a wall of text that I can't be bothered to read because you're a terrible human being.

I am henceforth suggesting that all posts of yours over 400 characters long be replaced with a picture of those wing shoes of yours so we can laugh at you.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise this thread had already degenerated into snappy one liners and pictures. Maybe next time you could leave an official announcement of when the time for discussion of the subject has passed so I know not to bother. I'd hate to think I'd made you read stuff, on a discussion forum.

Though she didn't have quite the death toll of the Lockerbie bomber, Squeaky Fromme was released from prison on compassionate grounds just last week.

You are so gross.

We're never gonna hear from Locke again, he discovered that one of the passengers on today's flight was a convict who got out early on good behavior so he slammed the plane into a mountain for :savepoint:JUSTICE:savepoint:

Getting to ride on an airplane? Pretty good reward for robbing a Dollar Tree, scum. NOT ON MY WATCH

I know you're joking, but petty theft is in no way analogous to the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians.

Locke isn't airing an unreasonable stance, either. Now, I don't necessarily agree with him, but when did keeping a man charged with mass murder behind bars become a controversial position?

I don't disagree with his stance as a general principle. All things being equal I agree that felons should mostly serve their sentences in full, whatever they may be.

What's being mocked here is the absurd, bombastic way in which he's presented his position: the blubbery insistence that we THINK OF THE FAMILIES COULD YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO THE FAMILIES, the appeals to capital-J JUSTICE, the notion that eye-for-an-eye is a sensible way to run things.

I find no fault with Locke's conclusions; I find fault with his methodology and the mad conclusions it may later lead him to.

Justice is blindfolded to represent indifference to circumstance and personal status in the course of determining guilt and punishment; only the facts of the crime should be considered. It would be dishonest to say that "blind justice" would just let someone go due to the circumstance that the convicted has contracted cancer.

That's what I was thinking. Justice isn't "compassionate." Justice is indifferent to suffering all around.

That's not to say I don't agree with you guys. I just think the whole "justice is blind" argument is kind of silly and holds no water.

I could never get behind "an eye for an eye" mentality. I'm with Pang on this one.

Justice and mercy can be a tad controversial, no?

Even more so when allegations of trade politics get into the mix!

The answer is clear, Locke. Fly over and off him yourself. We are 'Justiceteers' and you can be one too!

Actually, the eye-for-an-eye justice for him would have been to blow up the plane that was taking him to Libya.

After forewarning the crew and other innocents to abandon ship first, of course.