Should the Lockerbie bomber have been released?

[afleitch]

Yes.

Scots law give everyone the right to appeal for compassionate leave; the appeal for the bomber was legally sound and he was freed. Had he not been freed he would have died in a Scottish jail as a martyr.

And if your head is messed up and you want to avenge that 'martyrdom' what are you going to do? Blow up a bit of Scotland that's what. That aside, there are many people who believe that he simply didn't do it. They aren't quacks; they are justices within the Scots legal system, many of those at the trial. The fact he was found guilty as opposed to 'Not proven' was indeed a suprise to many.

[pogo stick]

F*** No.

[Scam of God]

F*** No.

So you want to pay more taxes to house more prisoners? Right on. We'll be at that social democratic State soon enough!

[pogo stick]

F*** No.

So you want to pay more taxes to house more prisoners? Right on. We'll be at that social democratic State soon enough!

Ok, I pick National Security over economic stability

[Scam of God]

F*** No.

So you want to pay more taxes to house more prisoners? Right on. We'll be at that social democratic State soon enough!

Ok, I pick National Security over economic stability

Shut up and pay your taxes! We have to afford this nanny state somehow, don't we? More taxes! More taxes! More war! More taxes!

[Boris]

I don't really know anything about the case, but didn't the Libyan government shell out compensation for the victims? Isn't that tantamount to an implicit admission of the bomber's guilt, or at least a partial role in the bombing?

[Scam of God]

I don't really know anything about the case, but didn't the Libyan government shell out compensation for the victims? Isn't that tantamount to an implicit admission of the bomber's guilt, or at least a partial role in the bombing?

So? If compensation's been paid, why ought the Scottish taxpayer be forced to pay for this scumbag's room-and-board, even if he is guilty?

"Oh lol, I hatez teh gubbmints, 'cept when I don't, lolol!"

[Boris]

I was responding to the notion that some Scottish officials question his guilt, not answering the question in the OP. relax, bro

[Scam of God]

I was responding to the notion that some Scottish officials question his guilt, not answering the question in the OP. relax, bro

Sorry. It's just that morons like dead0man tend to spoil the whole thing for me.

[bullmoose88]

Einzige,

Let me just ask you a hypothetical since my simple mind is having trouble appreciating where you stand here

Supposing the recently freed was factually guilty of the crime (actually did it), his conviction was proper (no prejudicial and reversable error under Scottish Law) and supposing further that there was either no compassion policy in Scotland/he did not qualify for it (no terminal disease)

Now with those assumptions in hand, would you still be advocating his release? 

[Scam of God]

Einzige,

Let me just ask you a hypothetical since my simple mind is having trouble appreciating where you stand here

Supposing the recently freed was factually guilty of the crime (actually did it), his conviction was proper (no prejudicial and reversable error under Scottish Law) and supposing further that there was either no compassion policy in Scotland/he did not qualify for it (no terminal disease)

Now with those assumptions in hand, would you still be advocating his release? 

Absolutely. The State has no business whatsoever in holding a monopoly of force, which extends to imprisonment (i.e. the deprivation of liberty) of individuals convicted of a crime. Of course, since that's not what happened here - the fellow in question was convicted under dubious circumstances - your point is moot.

I don't expect you to be capable of being anything but a hypocrite on this issue. Your entire political reality relies on your being a Statist here.

[bullmoose88]

Einzige,

Let me just ask you a hypothetical since my simple mind is having trouble appreciating where you stand here

Supposing the recently freed was factually guilty of the crime (actually did it), his conviction was proper (no prejudicial and reversable error under Scottish Law) and supposing further that there was either no compassion policy in Scotland/he did not qualify for it (no terminal disease)

Now with those assumptions in hand, would you still be advocating his release? 

Absolutely. The State has no business whatsoever in holding a monopoly of force, which extends to imprisonment (i.e. the deprivation of liberty) of individuals convicted of a crime. Of course, since that's not what happened here - the fellow in question was convicted under dubious circumstances - your point is moot.

I don't expect you to be capable of being anything but a hypocrite on this issue. Your entire political reality relies on your being a Statist here.

Now now, there's no need to start flinging insults...that seems just a tad premature in my view...you've called me a hypocrite and a statist...wow man...let me at least do something in our discussion first before you dish out the verbal beating.

I think for better or worse, the particular facts of this matter have been beaten like a dead horse, regardless of what "hypocrites" like myself think about the man, his trial, release etc...there isn't a goddamn thing we can do about it now...other than bitch and moan of course.

I'm more interested in your response...I guess I could understand it more in the context of a person convicted of a non-violent crime...or even a habitual five-finger-discounter...but supposing you had someone who actually committed what I'd believe to be murder (of the first degree in the US)...the intentional, premeditated killing of another (well 270 or so)...and was fairly convicted...

You'd let them go free.  Ok, the state you say doesn't have a monopoly to deprive one of liberty...

So in your hypothetical world, what happens next...if the state can't deprive him of his liberty...can anyone?  Does he get to walk free...does he get the mark of cain and get to walk free?  Can vigilantes extract their own punishment? 

You gotta tell me more man.

[Scam of God]

Let the relatives take their vengeance, if they want it. And let his do likewise. Someone will, eventually, realize that the cycle must be broken, and do so accordingly. It is of no concern of mine.

[bullmoose88]

Let the relatives take their vengeance, if they want it. And let his do likewise. Someone will, eventually, realize that the cycle must be broken, and do so accordingly. It is of no concern of mine.

Well, that settles the retributive purpose (if one could call it a legitmate purpose) of state imprisonment...

But what about the notion of protecting its citizens.  The state often puts people behind bars to prevent them from committing further crimes...and for this one, I don't mean those bullsh**t crimes...take a serial killer for instance...you put him behind bars, perhaps execute him in some states, so that they cannot kill again.  I think I know the answer to this question already but I'll ask it nonetheless...does the state have the right/authority to incarcerate based upon the protection of its citizens?  If not, do we simply revert back to vigilante justice here (or private actors neutralizing the threat).  Or under the state, is every citizen guilty and thus no innocent lives to protect?

[Scam of God]

.does the state have the right/authority to incarcerate based upon the protection of its citizens?

No. And that's not what it does today, anyway. It imprisons those who offend the precious moral sensibilities of its citizens, to give them the primal feeling of justification. Overarching notions of "justice" and "egality" figure not a whit into the machinations of the prison-industrial complex. Be honest: this man was convicted for being a Muslim in the right place. Admit it. Stop lying to me. It's distasteful.

[bullmoose88]

.does the state have the right/authority to incarcerate based upon the protection of its citizens?

No. And that's not what it does today, anyway. It imprisons those who offend the precious moral sensibilities of its citizens, to give them the primal feeling of justification.

Surely, in most cases.  But whether in the remaining cases it intends to or not, its imprisonment of some does serve the protective purpose, at least in part.



 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Seriously, tone it down some.  I realize that generally, I'm a pretty big asshole, but don't remind me of it.   The mirror does it plenty.

2. That's a tougher question.  Assuming the whole process was fraudulent (as you and many posters have said or seem to), my first thought would be that he was convicted because of his nation of origin, not his religion.  I don't know if I'd make the leap (perhaps you wouldn't call it a leap, but a mere step...its not unreasonable to do) to say Libyan=Muslim and thus he was convicted because he was a Libyan...Muslim.

3. Now others have said, both on the boards and persons in the real world stating the convicted was innocent that this could have been an Iranian plot.  So perhaps you might be correct in that someone ultimately would have been convicted, and that person or persons would have been Muslim.  That brings me to a fork in the road...on one side is the path that because of the West's actions (or Anglo-American, or just American actions) someone from the Muslim world would have been fired up to do this, the other seems more nebulous to me...the American need for a constant cause of war in that region dictated that the patsy was always to be a muslim.  I'm much more inclined to go with the simpler, first path, but if there's a road I'm missing, I'm sure you or another poster will point that out.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, mainly because he never showed any contrition for what had been convicted of doing. If he wants to assert he was innocent, let him either prove he was wrongfully convicted or die in prison.

"I loves me some prisons. I especially love the tax to support prisons. Prisons are awesome. In fact, I don't know what society did before they were invented (despite the fact that prisons have only existed since the Roman era, and individuals were exiled from society before their invention.) the prison-industrial complex."

You make me sick, you worthless hypocrite. I expect such drivel from States, but not from you.

Frankly, I'd have preferred a quick execution, since I am pro-capital punishment, once he had been found guilty and his appeals had been exhausted.  As for concerns over cost, for a prisoner sentenced to a life term who has exhausted his appeals, if he gets cancer, while I can see the necessity for the prison to provide palliative care, the cost of cancer treatment should be borne by the prisoner or his family.

[Scam of God]

No, mainly because he never showed any contrition for what had been convicted of doing. If he wants to assert he was innocent, let him either prove he was wrongfully convicted or die in prison.

"I loves me some prisons. I especially love the tax to support prisons. Prisons are awesome. In fact, I don't know what society did before they were invented (despite the fact that prisons have only existed since the Roman era, and individuals were exiled from society before their invention.) the prison-industrial complex."

You make me sick, you worthless hypocrite. I expect such drivel from States, but not from you.

Frankly, I'd have preferred a quick execution, since I am pro-capital punishment, once he had been found guilty and his appeals had been exhausted.  As for concerns over cost, for a prisoner sentenced to a life term who has exhausted his appeals, if he gets cancer, while I can see the necessity for the prison to provide palliative care, the cost of cancer treatment should be borne by the prisoner or his family.

So the State is indeed justified in proclaiming a monopoly of violence?

Not a one of you - not one of you - right-libertarians are consistent at all. It's unbelievable how little ideological spine the lot of you have; maybe a single vertebrae among you. "Libertarianism" is for you jerkholes whatever is furthest to the right any given day of the week.

[pogo stick]

Of course because when we are all dead we can pay taxes right?

When America will be a desolate   nation becuase we released these terrorists we'll still have a deficit right?




 You are crazy, I didn't know nay one oculd be more stupid then Ron Paul

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not a one of you - not one of you - right-libertarians are consistent at all. It's unbelievable how little ideological spine the lot of you have; maybe a single vertebrae among you. "Libertarianism" is for you jerkholes whatever is furthest to the right any given day of the week.

Except I'm not a libertarian.  I do have some libertarian tendencies that make me skeptical of government.  For instance, I think we have far too many crimes on the book, such as those pertaining to drugs, gambling, and prostitution, but I can't imagine a more fundamental crime to have on the law books and to punish as severely as possible than a deliberate act of murder.

If you're gong to argue that murder should not be a crime, that's not libertariansm; that's anarchy.

[Frodo]

No, he should have languished in prison until he died.  And it is especially reprehensible that the British government would release him just so they could improve their chances of getting some deals with Libya. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The argument that it would've pissed some people off or made him a martyr had he died in jail is ridiculous. You might as well argue Rudolph Hess should've been released after WWII under the same logic.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The argument that it would've pissed some people off or made him a martyr had he died in jail is ridiculous. You might as well argue Rudolph Hess should've been released after WWII under the same logic.

He also might as well argue that the U.S. should stop looking for Bin Laden (because locking him up would anger a lot of people, and many in the Islamic World don't believe he was responsible for 9/11) and should release Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.

[Earth]

The argument that it would've pissed some people off or made him a martyr had he died in jail is ridiculous. You might as well argue Rudolph Hess should've been released after WWII under the same logic.

I would've argued for Hess' release, actually. He was in no mental shape to have been incarcerated in a prison.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Uh, plenty of Nazis obviously weren't in perfect mental shape, including Hitler. Doesn't mean they should've gotten away.