21 Aug 09
I can only speak as a Scotsman, not as a politician.
Our country has a legal system, like most others. The processes of that legal system are not up for barter, and not for Barrak Obama to decide. I feel sorry for all the victims of the Locherbie bombing at this time, and the release has, of course, opened some painful wounds. For that, i think our government should apologise.
What our government should not apologise for, however, is that our legal processes are not a political tool.
I can't say i agree with the decision, but i am proud that there is room for a non-political, compassionate legal system in our small land that is not for sale.
21 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainOriginally posted by MacSwain
Rest assured loads more in Scotland, than you may be led to believe, are opposed to this "compassionate" release. Don't forget most of this madman's victims were not Scots and those nations are yet to be fully heard from.
This terrorist has prostate cancer. Perhaps you don't know it is the slowest acting cancer of all? In fact, many men over 60 years of ...[text shortened]... ted on Scotland.
ps - There will be celebration in Lybia...count on a hero's reception.
This terrorist has prostate cancer…… the slowest acting cancer of all…...many men over 60 years…...diagnosed with start of prostate cancer are advised not to bother with treatment because the cancer is so slow acting......Yes, I have read doctors have given him 3 months to live, lets wait and see. If he is still around next year it will be the most important hoax ever perpetrated on Scotland.
ps - There will be celebration in Lybia...count on a hero's reception.
Already, Muammar Qaddafi’s promise there would not be a hero’s reception and celebration is shown to be rubbish.
Wait 89 days and it will be seen if the “going home to die” portion is also rubbish.
21 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainWell, whatever might have been said in advance of his repatriation, I don't think you win any prizes whatsoever for prescience in predicting the reception he would receive. I'll grant you that if he's managed to fool several doctors in to believing he has advanced prostate cancer and in fact goes on to live a long and happy life back in Libya, what is at present nothing more than a rather nasty insinuation will make you seem like wise old owl, though. As you say, we shall see.
[b]Originally posted by MacSwain
This terrorist has prostate cancer…… the slowest acting cancer of all…...many men over 60 years…...diagnosed with start of prostate cancer are advised not to bother with treatment because the cancer is so slow acting......Yes, I have read doctors have given him 3 months to live, lets wait and see. If he is still arou ubbish.
Wait 89 days and it will be seen if the “going home to die” portion is also rubbish.
(Edit: apologies, no idea why this is all bold and shouty.)
21 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyGood point there Wadster. It may be easier to show compassion in that case still as the connection between the drug dealer and victims are much cloudier. I know if someone killed a relative of mine, I wouldn't care too much if he was going to be dead in a few days anyway.
But what if he were a drug dealer? How many lives could he be repsonsible for taking? He too could be a mass murderer even though he may not be seen as "bad" by the aveerage joe. (No pun intended) 😛
21 Aug 09
Originally posted by DrKF1) I do not believe I ducked that question. I believe I answered it directly a few pages ago.
Interesting example, and a difficult one I'm sure. I think it goes to show that the matter of who gets jurisdiction doesn't exist within a legal-theoretical bubble, but has to be alive to political realities and political and public expectations and attitudes.
You do seem to be repeatedly ducking a much simpler hypothetical, though, so I'll state it again:
...[text shortened]... on the fact that an airliner was brought down in American airspace and hit an American town?
2) Would there be heated debate? Well, gee, yeah, I guess there probably would be. But whether there's debate doesn't change the "right" answer. The "right" answer is that while both countries technically have jurisdiction, in my opinion, if the plane is French, the airline is French and the vast majority of the victims are French, the US ought to concede jurisdiction to the French.
3) Even if, for whatever reason, the US asserted jurisdiction and had one reason or another to free the defendant (say, a lack of evidence or parole or whatever), I CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY, think it would be incumbent on the US government to give the French the option of asserting their own jurisdiction on him as well. To free the defendant and to send him home and not to give the french the option of bringing him to justice under French law would be a gross insult to the French.*
* "Double Jeopardy" does not apply to actions brought by separate sovereigns.
21 Aug 09
Originally posted by DrKFPlease don't misread my skepticism for desire. I wanted both predictions to be in error. However, I have learned to be suspicious of deception with international dealings of this nature.
Well, whatever might have been said in advance of his repatriation, I don't think you win any prizes whatsoever for prescience in predicting the reception he would receive. I'll grant you that if he's managed to fool several doctors in to believing he has advanced prostate cancer and in fact goes on to live a long and happy life back in Libya, what is at ...[text shortened]... ugh. As you say, we shall see.
(Edit: apologies, no idea why this is all bold and shouty.)
It turns out that my suspicion was well founded in regards Qaddafi’s promise. I can assure you I do not wish the second to be correct.
21 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeThat was a mistake.
In 1990 President Bush awarded the Legion of Merit to the commander of the USS Vincennes on returning from shooting down Iran Air 655 with 290 passengers on board.
Double standards, surely?
This was intentional.
Hardly a double standard.
And, he was not rewarded for shooting down the plane. He was rewarded for his other service. Was he overaggressive? I don't know. Maybe he was a criminal who should have been prosecuted. But it's not a valid comparison to something we know was intentional.
21 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIn 1998, the UK and US governments agreed Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused could stand trial under Scots law in the Netherlands under certain conditions.
Where has concurrent jurisdiction ever happened in a case with circumstances like this, Captain America?
You're being utterly daft. The case was heard in Britain because the U.S. didn't insist? Don't be so silly.
In a letter to the UN secretary general, Britain and America made clear that "if found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom".
It is that condition that US relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing are determined to ensure is upheld.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8214708.stm
It took nearly three years for US and British investigators to indict Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah on murder charges.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/8197615.stm
Still think the US had no right to any jurisdiction over the case?
In fact, what happened WAS a product of a compromise involving the US. So, yes, part of the reason the case was heard in Britain was that the US didn't insist. IF they'd insisted, it's not clear what would have happened. Obviously, though, Britain did concede that the US had at least some say in the matter.
22 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76I said nothing of the sort.
Still think the US had no right to any jurisdiction over the case?
The issue was your silly assertion that the case should have been processed in the U.S. and how you could not understand why it was proocessed in Scotland. Turns out you knew next to nothing about the politics behind the case.
And now, to perpetuate this "discussion", you misrepresent what I said. Ho hum. Whatever pushes your buttons, sh76.