Scotland releases the Lockerbie mass murderer after 8 years in prison

posted at 12:15 pm on August 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

It took more than a decade to get Abdel Baset al-Megrahi to trial in Scotland to face charges of mass murder in the bombing of a Pan Am jet that killed 259 people in the air and 11 people on the ground in Lockerbie.  Convicted of the murders, Megrahi got sentenced to life imprisonment, but as it turns out, Megrahi will serve less than 12 days for each murder.  Scotland has agreed to release Megrahi on “compassionate” grounds:

Scotland’s government freed the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds Thursday, allowing him to die at home in Libya despite American protests that mercy should not be shown to the man responsible for the deaths of 270 people.

The White House said it “deeply regrets” Scotland’s move minutes after the decision was announced.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said Abdel Baset al-Megrahi’s condition had deteriorated from prostate cancer. Al-Megrahi had only served some eight years of a life sentence, but MacAskill said he was bound by Scottish values to release him.

Many of the victims were American, including four intelligence officers on Pan Am 103.  How did the Obama administration react to the release of the man who murdered them?  Rather passively:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned MacAskill before the announcement, urging him not to release al-Megrahi, and seven U.S. senators wrote a letter with a similar message.

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. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate diplomacy involved and the sensitive nature of the case.

Supposedly, Megrahi only has three months to live, and the Scots want to give him the opportunity to spend his last few days with his family.  I suppose the families of Megrahi’s 270 victims would have liked that, too.  Too bad Megrahi never gave them that chance.

The Scots say that they treated him according to Scotland’s values.  Apparently, they value innocent life at around 11.57 days, which is the number that Megrahi served for each person he murdered in that terrorist attack.  If we don’t value innocent life more than that, how exactly does that make us different from thugs like Megrahi?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Three months in prison will not bring back one day with a loved one. I recognize that this issue is complicated and full of anxiety, and at the same time, I think that erring on the side of compassion is never a bad decision.

Frostbite on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Compassion for whom? The terrorist? It is not a complicated situation nor is it one that is particularly anxious. Life in prison is life in prison. Not life minus three months. He had a whole decade with his family before he was sentenced. That is far more time than the victims’ families had.

highhopes on August 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Compassion, Texas style. (no problems here)

NickelAndDime on August 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM

This is me on a good day. You don’t want my response on a bad one.

TXMomof3 on August 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Link 2: http://tinyurl.com/lbgb7h

(Split so as to avoid the “awaiting moderation” flag)

notropis on August 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM

An unsettling thought just popped into my head. Is this guy going home to a hero’s welcome? Is he going to be a great martyr? Will countless youth now be inspired by him and want to join the terrorist ranks? Thanks a lot compassionate idiots!

Tommy_G on August 20, 2009 at 12:56 PM

This is an example of why treating terror as a “crime” does not work. We need to kill them not coddle them. Another disgusting story.

elduende on August 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I LOVE YOU MAN!

thomasaur on August 20, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I wonder how the families of the 11 Scottish families affected by this atrocity feel about these compassionate grounds. Do they feel their “Scottish values” have been met with his release?

I also wonder – would this have happened when GW Bush was President? Or did the Great O-ppeaser just let this one slip by only to release a “strongly worded” statement after the fact?

KrisinNE on August 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Well, remember: most euros feel they’re superior and “more enlightened”, than Americans, because we still have a federal government that supports the death penalty. In fact, these nations won’t even extradite wanted murderers into our custody, unless we promise not to deal them the justice they deserve. Maybe if Scotland had re-thought their “enlightened” position on this, decades ago, maybe they wouldn’t be going through all this controversy and hand-wringing about ‘compassionately’ cutting loose murderous terrorists.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM

He may have gotten a three month reprieve, but Hell is a long sentence.

espnjunkie on August 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Three months in prison will not bring back one day with a loved one. I recognize that this issue is complicated and full of anxiety, and at the same time, I think that erring on the side of compassion is never a bad decision.
Frostbite on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM

You’re right. Why should he ever have been in prison at all? It didn’t bring back any of the lost and just added to his stress level. /s

The issue is not complicated at all, unless you’re a moron. Moron.

DarkCurrent on August 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Fred is a strict constructionist in matters of law.

His advice to a colleague was in that vein. Better an honest conviction than laying out many many paths to an appeal, or worse, exoneration.

But, to suggest that Fred’s legal advice at the time, (one meeting John Culver, a former Democratic senator from Iowa) on matters of international extradition, and jurisdiction had anything to do with the Scottish Court’s decision to release this animal for “compassionate reasons” being a “black mark” against Fred…perhaps that is not looking at the facts of the case.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Amazing disgrace, Scotland.

Christien on August 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Reagan had the right idea; when they got out of control and opted against civilized behavior; when they opted to become a government of murderous, blood-soaked barbarians, he bombed them, and once that happened, we heard nary a word from them.

The Lockerbie bombing was two years after Reagan bombed Libya.

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM

As I understand Islam, a Muslim never really knows if he’s going to heaven; it’s all up to Allah. The only sure way to heaven is to die as a martyr for Islam. This guy has already demonstrated his terrorist ways and knows he’s going to die soon. How much of a stretch is it for some radical Islamic cleric to convince this guy that since he’s going to die soon anyway, why not die as a martyr for Islam? I think the odds are pretty good that this guy’s going to strap on a bomb and kill himself and as many infidels as he can in the process to ensure himself a place in heaven. If this guy causes the death of even a single person, that judge should finish out his prison sentence.

suburbanite on August 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Great Britain

jgapinoy on August 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I heartily look forward to an opinion on this by George Galloway. We could use a punching bag.

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

He was sentenced to life in prison. Now that they’ve learned that would mean his sentence will end a little sooner they’re suddenly letting him out of jail? Completely illogical.

Esthier on August 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Maybe if Fred Thompson had not given this terrorist legal advice on jurisdictional issues, then this murderous terrorist would have spent another ten years in prison rather than running free in the prime of life around Tripoli.

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I guess in your little world, if you don’t like people, they don’t get adequate legal council. Fred Thompson gave him that, but that’s because that’s his job and creed. He’s an attorney. Cases are approached on merit, not emotional value. Again, though, I guess this is all above your head.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM

We could use a punching bag.

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

It’d be more cathartic if you were speaking literally. I’m just going to avoid this story.

Esthier on August 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Scotland’s full of nitwits. This is no surprise.

Jaibones on August 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Fred is a strict constructionist in matters of law.

His advice to a colleague was in that vein. Better an honest conviction than laying out many many paths to an appeal, or worse, exoneration.

But, to suggest that Fred’s legal advice at the time, (one meeting John Culver, a former Democratic senator from Iowa) on matters of international extradition, and jurisdiction had anything to do with the Scottish Court’s decision to release this animal for “compassionate reasons” being a “black mark” against Fred…perhaps that is not looking at the facts of the case.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Kind of like when people ask me health care questions. I don’t tell them which option to take, I just lay out the facts.

But I guess by the “logic” employed about Fred Thompson, I can be blamed for people dying of disease or something. I talked to them, after all. Therefore, it’s all my fault.

mjk on August 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM

I don’t know the particulars, coldwarrior. If Fred was just giving abstract advice, then I have no problem with that, but if he knew that his advice was being used to help an arab terrorist, then I can see no decent explanation.

I don’t blame Fred for this decision by the Sottish court, at all. I just have a general attitude that no one should ever try to help any arab/persian/muslim terrorists in any way, in any venue, at any time.

This doesn’t change my whole view of Fred, or anything, but I consider it to have been a very poor decision, if he had given any advice knowing that it would help the defense/fight extradiction of the Libyan worm.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM

What is the difference between Scotland letting this terrorist go and Obama wanting to let loose the terrorists in Gitmo?

bkm on August 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM

As I understand Islam, a Muslim never really knows if he’s going to heaven; it’s all up to Allah. The only sure way to heaven is to die as a martyr for Islam. This guy has already demonstrated his terrorist ways and knows he’s going to die soon. How much of a stretch is it for some radical Islamic cleric to convince this guy that since he’s going to die soon anyway, why not die as a martyr for Islam? I think the odds are pretty good that this guy’s going to strap on a bomb and kill himself and as many infidels as he can in the process to ensure himself a place in heaven. If this guy causes the death of even a single person, that judge should finish out his prison sentence.

suburbanite on August 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Now, wouldn’t that be poetic justice, if he was stopped by security forces (maybe even the guy that stopped the last terror attack on a Scottish airport, last year), just before detonating a bomb and killing hundreds of people as he was boarding a plane with a fake ID? That would be some serious crow-eating for all the “enlightened” people of europe. (But I’m very certain they lack the capacity to learn from such a lesson.)

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Before they let him go, they should put him in a room with the families and friends of his victims for a few days.

I’m sure they’d have a lot to talk about.

wildweasel on August 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

What is the difference between Scotland letting this terrorist go and Obama wanting to let loose the terrorists in Gitmo?

bkm on August 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM

There isn’t any difference both decisions were made by idiots.

TXMomof3 on August 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

if you don’t like people, they don’t get adequate legal council.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Arab/persian/muslim terrorists don’t deserve legal council. I’m ticked that we don’t pick them off once we’ve identified them and gotten whatever info from them we needed.

I make a huge distinction between the Constitutional rights of Americans and the lack of Constitutional rights of non-Americans on foreign soil.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Mildly poetic justice would be restraining this guy, and letting all the family members of the people he murdered carry out the death of a thousand cuts.

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM

What is the difference between Scotland letting this terrorist go and Obama wanting to let loose the terrorists in Gitmo?

bkm on August 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Easy. Liberals will say that the guy from Scotland was actually a convicted criminal. The guys from Guantanamo Bay “aren’t“, and are just being held for no reason. However, once we start our catch and release program in America, I’m thinking that might change.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM

mjk on August 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM

No.

If you look at Fred’s legal career he was most times a pain in the ass for those who he encountered, his respect for the law as it stands, under the Consitition, being his major rationale for his decisions.

If we allow the law to be twisted according to feelings and penumbras, soon we have no law…none, except by dictat of those in charge.

It is not at all kind of like when people ask you health care questions. You do not have to answer, that is your Right. You can question any aspect of those questions, also your Right. You can and should seek another opinion or other medical advice, also your Right.

What Obamacare will do is to deny you that Right…accept it or be refused care or fined, or otherwise assisted towards your place in the Choir Invisible.

Big difference.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Fred’s advice helped convict this piece of scum. It could have easily gone to a full exoneration.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM

All I have….

***spits on sidewalk***

Limerick on August 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM

I am too depressed to go to lunch and listen to Rush.

TXMomof3 on August 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM

I am too depressed to go to lunch and listen to Rush.

TXMomof3 on August 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Stay at your computer and listen to him online, then.

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Stay at your computer and listen to him online, then.

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM

They block every single thing, but I will try.

TXMomof3 on August 20, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Try this one, in Internet Explorer only. Click “listen online”.

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

He should have been left to rot and die alone in jail. The British judicial system is an joke and now an insult to all those that died that terrible night.

As a Brit, I am thoroughly ashamed and I can only apologise for my stupid, ignorant country. The sooner I can become a US citizen the better I will feel. I now live in a country that is trouble yes, but one I am truly proud of and love with all my heart.

Dino64 on August 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Arab/persian/muslim terrorists don’t deserve legal council. I’m ticked that we don’t pick them off once we’ve identified them and gotten whatever info from them we needed.

I make a huge distinction between the Constitutional rights of Americans and the lack of Constitutional rights of non-Americans on foreign soil.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:09 PM

I have no problem with military tribunals. What I do have a problem with is giving these guys federal trials, even when they’re caught in domestic terrorist activities. Also, I think there should be only one punishment for terrorism and aiding and abetting terror: DEATH. And not by firing squad, not by lethal injection, not by the rope and not by the gas chamber. Death must come in the chair. If they can be proven innocent in front of a military tribunal, more power to ‘em. If not, there should be, at most, one chance at retrial (and that should be a long-shot). The DAY that appeal either fails, or is denied, sentence should be carried out, immediately (within 5 – 10 minutes).

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

trouble I meant troubled, of course. Apologies.

Dino64 on August 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Fred’s advice helped convict this piece of scum. It could have easily gone to a full exoneration.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Like I said, I’m not familiar with the particulars. I tried to put “if”s in to cover that. I’ll have to check the story out for myself and see how it looks.

In any event, I have not turned on Fred, in any way, but would just be very disappointed if it was as tommylotto stated.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Stay at your computer and listen to him online, then.

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM

You are brilliant. Don’t let anyone ever tell you different. Thanks.

TXMomof3 on August 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Death must come in the chair.

Why is that so important?

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Disgusting. What the hell is going on in Scotland?

brennan251 on August 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM

How could the UK and Scottish court ignore the protests of 0bama after all he has done to cement the special relationship between the US and the UK? Oh… wait..

Lou Budvis on August 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Yeah. We’re pretty much in sync on that. I would add covert counter-terror operations, too, of the very robust kind (off US soil). Very robust.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Three months in prison will not bring back one day with a loved one. I recognize that this issue is complicated and full of anxiety, and at the same time, I think that erring on the side of compassion is never a bad decision.

Frostbite on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM

And the pain for the many who are sickened by this release…the man that stole hundreds of families lives, mean nothing to you.
This is why we are in the disaster we are in…people like you are afraid of making the tough decisions to save many, so you can appear to have compassion.
Your lack of compassion for the victims are noted…but you won’t care, they are faceless, they are in the “background”, so they are insignificant.
Think, think hard about you (and all the others) when you are “compassionate” at the price of others good will…it’s called “ego-selfish”.

right2bright on August 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Why is that so important?

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Because it’s one of the harshest, most frightening ways of being executed. Hanging is almost instantaneous, with the breaking of the neck and severing of the spinal cord. The gas chamber is choking and fairly quick unconsciousness. Lethal injection is going to sleep. The firing squad is made to be quick. The other methods aren’t even that frightening to watch (with the exception of heads coming off, every once in a while, with hangings). Executing prisoners in the chair and jolting them again-and-again until they actually die, as well as forcing other convicts to see this would be psychological torture like no other, just as knowing you’re going to be burned to death by high voltage, yourself, would be, once you’re convicted.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM

right2bright on August 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM

+100

DarkCurrent on August 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Two colleagues were on 103. The rest of us caught other flights home. I can’t begin to imagine what the families are going through.

Christien on August 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I read an article yesterday that said that the early release was granted in order to get him to drop his second appeal of the conviction, because he would likely have won the appeal. Darned if I can remember where I read it, though.

ProfessorMiao on August 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

And I would just add that while we are an individualistic culture, the arab/persian/muslim world consists of tribal cultures that don’t understand individualism, at all. When we fight them we must fight them in a tribal way that they understand, which means that the terrorists need to know that they endanger far more than themselves with their actions.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Yeah. We’re pretty much in sync on that. I would add covert counter-terror operations, too, of the very robust kind (off US soil). Very robust.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM

If I were president, I would expand the size and power of SOCOM like no one would believe. Counterterror operations would be 24/7, both internationally and domestically (by attaching them to agencies like the DHS and FBI and USMS, via posse comitatus). Anyone caught that survives goes to Guantanamo Bay. Anyone found there to actually be terrorists while guests of the United States and Cuba and undergoing harsh interrogation would never be seen again. I don’t believe in “deals” or reduced sentencing. Commit an act of terror, and stupid enough to get caught? You get interrogated, you get brought before a military tribunal, you get convicted, and you die. I find out he had any assistance from the government, then I reveal the meat of his confession in a public address, and have the Department of State declare their government a state sponsor of terror. Citizens of state sponsors of terror are arrested, interrogated and deported. State sponsors of terror will not get student visas, nor visas of any kind, while I remain in office, or if I get a law prohibiting it passed.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM

European pussies! Someone hould be waiting 2 miles from the airport with a Barrett .50 and put that flame out.

faol on August 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM

And the Traitor-in-Chief and Washington junta would be slobbering to put you on trial for defending our nation. Therein lies our big problem.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM

We are in the end times aren’t we? Everything that is right is being called wrong and everything that is wrong is being called right.

gophergirl on August 20, 2009 at 1:37 PM

And I would just add that while we are an individualistic culture, the arab/persian/muslim world consists of tribal cultures that don’t understand individualism, at all. When we fight them we must fight them in a tribal way that they understand, which means that the terrorists need to know that they endanger far more than themselves with their actions.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Even such single-minded people will get the point when they face extinction. As wave-after-wave of them die in combat against SOCOM, and when SOCOM forces start actively seeking them out, they’ll become like some of the Taliban-allies in Afghanistan. They’ll aid and abet (through such things as dysinformation campaigns that prevent investigators from finding out from them where OPFOR are located, or even giving aid and comfort), but they’ll refrain from active participation in terrorist strikes, knowing that not only will they not see their people, ever again, but they’ll be visited by SOCOM forces, sometime soon, bearing a hand-written letter with my signature on it. A termination notice.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:37 PM

This is inexcusable. This heathen is a waste of oxygen.

kingsjester on August 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I’m sorry, was LIFE IN PRISON hard for you to understand? Was he “free” during those ten years or was he in custody?

Life in prison is life in prison. There shouldn’t be any other deal with this and some pathetic attempt to connect it to some lawyer from 10 years ago is well, moronic.

mjk on August 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Do you not understand. This terrorist was living free in Tripoli sexually abusing his wives and daughters or whatever these terrorists do for fun — maybe plotting other terrorists attacks. I don’t know. The US and Scottish prosecutors had evidence of his guilt and wanted to put him on trial, but Libya would not allow extradition, and a US legal team, including Fred Thompson, fought extradition of this terrorist scumbag. Because of these efforts, this terrorist remained free during the prime of his life before his illness. He was free to romp around Tripoli abusing his wives and plotting terrorist attacks for ten years — at least partly due to the efforts of Thompson.

I cannot get over that.

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM

We are in the end times aren’t we? Everything that is right is being called wrong and everything that is wrong is being called right.

gophergirl on August 20, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Unfortunately. What’s equally unfortunate is the fact that that kind of talk gets you nothing but ridicule, nowadays. It’s good, because of it hearalding the return of Jesus Christ. It’s bad, because you & I both know that there’s a lot of people we’ll not be spending Eternity with, and when we see them again, they’re not going to be any more on our side, then, then they are, now.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM

I LOVE YOU MAN!

thomasaur on August 20, 2009 at 12:56 PM

heh.

elduende on August 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM

It seems to me that the reason this fellow was tried in Scotland in the first place was they refused to extradite him to the US precisely because we have a death penalty.

Clearly, the Scottish government and courts LIED to the American people when they claimed he would never be released!

I also have serious questions why our government did NOT DEMAND that he be extradited to the US for additional trials. In a mass murder there are always additional charges that can be brought forward.

It is not clear to me what the appropriate response to this Scottish transgression should be, but there needs to be some.

Any ideas out there?

Freddy on August 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM

a US legal team, including Fred Thompson, fought extradition of this terrorist scumbag

Who paid for their legal services? Gaddafi?

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I cannot get over that.

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Here’s a question for you then:
I’m a nurse. I used to take care of crack babies and babies of prostitutes. Should I have refused because the parents should have “known better”? Should I have refused to do my professional duty because I have an objection to the way lives are lived?
Fred Thompson was a lawyer. He gave legal advice to a colleague who was defending this POS. Is he not supposed to do his job?

Believe it or not, some people are professionals. Lawyers honestly have to do things that would disgust most of us. But they do it because it is their job.
What do you do for a living that keeps you away from moral sticky points? It must be nice.

mjk on August 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM

And do you know that Fred Thompson actually contributed anything to the defense, or was he merely assigned to the legal team?

MadisonConservative on August 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Unfortunately. What’s equally unfortunate is the fact that that kind of talk gets you nothing but ridicule, nowadays.

When the plague was spreading in Europe in the 13th century people thought they were living in the end times and experiencing the plagues that were prophiesed in the Book of Revelation. How can you really know if the world is coming to an end until it actually happens?

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM

This is liberalism at its best. I swear, this world is insane. This butcher, this fking monster…killed almost 300 innocent people, 189 of which were American, most of which were collge kids…and liberal British filth just turns him loose. He wasnt even convicted until 2001 so hes only spent 8 damn years in prison for slaughtering 300 innocent people. Now we’re told hes only got 3 months to live…well guess what…Lance Armstrong was told he had a 20% chance of survival …that was like 15 years and 7 Tour de France later..hes still alive. Point is, this maggot killer terrorist could live for years..and we just let him go…to go be with his family and be a free man. This is total fking bullshit. And what has our wonderful President said about all of this? “Well my administration condems this.” And that was IT!

I swear I hate liberals with every fiber of my being.

Jackson1227 on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM

You’ve got my vote.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM

What timing. I just wrote a critigue on piece that critiques Scotland in my own blog. How they sold their independence to get bailed out by England. Check it out. http://www.Secundus.com

Hochmeister on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I guess in your little world, if you don’t like people, they don’t get adequate legal council. Fred Thompson gave him that, but that’s because that’s his job and creed. He’s an attorney. Cases are approached on merit, not emotional value. Again, though, I guess this is all above your head.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I guess if you were a lawyer you would understand the difference between the honorable act of a lawyer providing even a guilt man a zealous defense ON THE MERITS in our system of justice, on one hand, and , on the other hand, using jurisdictional and procedural technicalities to avoid or delay a trial on the merits for a guilty terrorist (actually an enemy combatant) in any unbiased justice system whatsoever — which is what Fred help to do. Those lawyers were not defending this terrorist, they were trying to make sure that this terrorist was never tried, or if tried that he was tried in some kangaroo court set up by Muammar al-Gaddafi.

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Three months in prison will not bring back one day with a loved one. I recognize that this issue is complicated and full of anxiety, and at the same time, I think that erring on the side of compassion is never a bad decision.

Frostbite on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM

OMG, what drivel. It’s not about bringing back anybody. It’s about effing JUSTICE, sweetheart.

Compassion? This filth already got his compassion. They didn’t execute him, did they?

The only compassion he deserved was to be killed quickly. I, on the other hand would’ve preferred to throw him out of a plane at 40K ft.

TXUS on August 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM

“Great” Britain is dead. There is nothing “great” about a nation that shows such weakness and passivity to those that would destroy them from within and do so openly and proudly.

Yakko77 on August 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Amen to that.

Whatever happened to the British Empire,
When did it turn into San Francisco ?

Texyank on August 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM

European pussies! Someone hould be waiting 2 miles from the airport with a Barrett .50 and put that flame out.

faol on August 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Wrong on 2 counts.

1: Not 1.25 km; 100 meters.

2: Not .50 cal; 25 mm (http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/military_photos_200481522.aspx).

There’s nothing like a face-shot.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Hey, let’s look on the bright side. At least they didn’t send him to Bermuda.

Upstater85 on August 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM

a US legal team, including Fred Thompson, fought extradition of this terrorist scumbag

Who paid for their legal services? Gaddafi?

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Yes, the defendants were Libyan intelligence officers. Their defense was paid by the government of Libya…


…it provided advice on American and international law to Ibrahim Legwell, the Libyan lawyer appointed by the Libyan Bar Association to represent the two intelligence officials charged with the Flight 103 bombing. Arent Fox received $833,960 in fees and expenses for its work on the case.

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM

I guess if you were a lawyer you would understand the difference between the honorable act of a lawyer providing even a guilt man a zealous defense ON THE MERITS in our system of justice, on one hand, and , on the other hand, using jurisdictional and procedural technicalities to avoid or delay a trial on the merits for a guilty terrorist (actually an enemy combatant) in any unbiased justice system whatsoever — which is what Fred help to do. Those lawyers were not defending this terrorist, they were trying to make sure that this terrorist was never tried, or if tried that he was tried in some kangaroo court set up by Muammar al-Gaddafi.

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM

IF that’s what he actually did, then you still don’t have to be an attorney to know that it’s also their job to see what they can prevent from even reaching trial. I don’t know the details, and you probablby don’t either. Don’t pull an Obama and pass judgements based on 2nd and 3rd hand information, then say someone acted “stupidly” (and Obama was an attorney). It’s all part of the job.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM

If the U.S. government were serious about this, which they are not, they would immediately do one of two things:

1) Call for censure of Scotland through the U.N. HA HA!! That would only be for the benefit of public relations.

2) Cut off all economic and diplomatic ties to Scotland and Libya, revocable only when they change their laws with regard to the capture of known terrorists.

Human life in the British Isles these days is worth little more than a hamburger and fries.

Oh, and the U.S. is not far behind. Obama, and his death cult administration will see to that.

Joe Pyne on August 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM

If this had occurred while President Bush and Tony Blair had still been in power, I doubt that the Scot Judge would have ruled to let this piece of trash go free. Looks like Hillary and Obama’s smart power is paying real dividends. For terrorists anyway.

KG in Sask on August 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM

When the plague was spreading in Europe in the 13th century people thought they were living in the end times and experiencing the plagues that were prophiesed in the Book of Revelation. How can you really know if the world is coming to an end until it actually happens?

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Actually, Catholicism-dominated Europe was making a judgement based on a lot less evidence. They didn’t have the widespread warfighting, widespread famine and pestilance, the institutionalization of evil, Satanic values, etc. It looks like we’re a lot closer to being in that time period, now, than hundreds of years ago. I don’t know that we are, I’m saying that it’s looking increasingly likely.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I just knew terrorists would go free if Obama was elected.

Kafir on August 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Fair enough and thanks for your reply re: the chair.

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I’m sure someone back in Scotland is alleging “Christian” values factored into this bad decisionmaking. In Christianity, just because you forgive someone, doesn’t absolve them of their crimes, and free them of their responsibility to pay for what they have done.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Far be it from me to assert that I know what Jesus would do in this situation, so I’ll just give the facts as we know them from Luke 23: When hung in-between two bonafide criminals, Roman soldiers and vengeful Jews below made fun of Jesus, urging him to save himself if he was the King of the Jews. Even one of the criminals joined in the abuse, but the other objected, confessing that he was deserving of the punishment, and expressing faith in Christ, seeing he was an innocent man. The repentant one is quoted as saying, “Remember me when you enter your kingdom,” to which Jesus replied, “You will be with me in Paradise.”

So what happened to the OTHER criminal? The scriptural account is silent, and there was NO guarantee offered by Jesus as to his destiny.

L.N. Smithee on August 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Whatever happened to the British Empire,
When did it turn into San Francisco ?

Texyank on August 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM

When they decided to allow the government to run their lives through ecomomic socialism.

That is what awaits the U.S. if Obama and the Democrats have their way.

Joe Pyne on August 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Hochmeister on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Cool thanks.

elduende on August 20, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Fair enough and thanks for your reply re: the chair.

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM

A little historical tidbit: Edison was a huge proponent of the electric chair, because he hated AC current and wanted to display it in the worst light, possible.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM

You’ve got my vote.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Thanks, but you would get PILLORIED and EXCORIATED over that, by liberals (and even some Conservatives). I bill myself as a hard-right Reaganite, a supporter of killing all social programs at the federal level and putting it on the states, and spending very liberally on defense. That, and being a Goth-boy, a hard-core Christian, a StraightEdger, a known disliker of islam, an unrepentant free-marketer, etc. would scare a lot of people off. CNN would just LOVE talking about me, and Saturday Night Live couldn’t lampoon me, enough. I’m sure that finding out I’m a hard-core Rush/Levin/Hannity/Coulter/Malkin/Novak/Bolton man probably wouldn’t help their perception of me much, either.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM

In Washington, Obama administration officials said Scottish authorities had not formally notified them that al-Megrahi would be released.

Well, he never notified the UK that he would be sending terrorists to Bermuda, so turnabout is fair play.

Vashta.Nerada on August 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Can’t wait to see how y’all make this Obama’s fault. LOL.

Constant Parrhesia on August 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Question that should have been asked of Al-Megrahi before deciding on his release:

“Can you think of any act of compassion you performed in your life comparable to the one you’re asking of this Court that would justify our granting it?”

Socratease on August 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I think that erring on the side of compassion is never a bad decision.

Frostbite on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Please inform us on exactly what is “compassionate” about freeing convicted murderers?

Injustice it is, but “compassionate” that’s a new one.

Joe Pyne on August 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

A little historical tidbit: Edison was a huge proponent of the electric chair, because he hated AC current and wanted to display it in the worst light, possible.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Yeah, I still giggle about that. Actually, I’d heard a story about the testing of a DC chair that went horrifically ugly. If it was as gruesome as I’d heard, I think they should’ve run with the DC chair.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM

A little historical tidbit: Edison was a huge proponent of the electric chair, because he hated AC current and wanted to display it in the worst light, possible.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM

I think a pretty good movie could be made of the rivalry between Edison and Tesla. But it will probably have to wait in line behind another piece of slop from Nora Ephron or laughless riot from a Wayans brother.

L.N. Smithee on August 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Far be it from me to assert that I know what Jesus would do in this situation, so I’ll just give the facts as we know them from Luke 23: When hung in-between two bonafide criminals, Roman soldiers and vengeful Jews below made fun of Jesus, urging him to save himself if he was the King of the Jews. Even one of the criminals joined in the abuse, but the other objected, confessing that he was deserving of the punishment, and expressing faith in Christ, seeing he was an innocent man. The repentant one is quoted as saying, “Remember me when you enter your kingdom,” to which Jesus replied, “You will be with me in Paradise.”

So what happened to the OTHER criminal? The scriptural account is silent, and there was NO guarantee offered by Jesus as to his destiny.

L.N. Smithee on August 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Wrong. The Bible clearly says what happened to the unrepentant criminal on the cross: Romans 6:23. That says it all.

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Far be it from me to assert that I know what Jesus would do in this situation, so I’ll just give the facts as we know them from Luke 23: When hung in-between two bonafide criminals, Roman soldiers and vengeful Jews below made fun of Jesus, urging him to save himself if he was the King of the Jews. Even one of the criminals joined in the abuse, but the other objected, confessing that he was deserving of the punishment, and expressing faith in Christ, seeing he was an innocent man. The repentant one is quoted as saying, “Remember me when you enter your kingdom,” to which Jesus replied, “You will be with me in Paradise.”

So what happened to the OTHER criminal? The scriptural account is silent, and there was NO guarantee offered by Jesus as to his destiny.

L.N. Smithee on August 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (KJV Mark 2:16)

suburbanite on August 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM

I think a pretty good movie could be made of the rivalry between Edison and Tesla. But it will probably have to wait in line behind another piece of slop from Nora Ephron or laughless riot from a Wayans brother.

I think it was more between Edison and Westinghouse, Tesla was just the techie.

Maybe Ken Burns can do a documentary on it, he did a pretty good job on the rivalry between DeForest and Armstrong.

Socratease on August 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM

I can believe that. Cooking from the inside is rough, anyway you do it. But, people are entitled to get exactly what they worked so hard to earn … and at half-amperage for terrorists.

progressoverpeace on August 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM

this terrorist to my best knowledge, has never expressed remorse or regret. how than, can a society show compassion to someone who has killed its citizens? to express compassion to someone who has done wrong would imply that the person who did wrong was in fact, remorseful. without remorse, what is the imperative of the society to show compassion to one who had, and could potentially do us harm again? if we put on kid gloves with anyone who seeks to do us harm, where is the deterrent? there simply is no deterrent effect with hardcore criminals/terrorist except locking them up or sending them to allah.

photoboy74 on August 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Maybe Ken Burns can do a documentary on it

The Old Negro Space Program

aengus on August 20, 2009 at 2:17 PM

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (KJV Mark 2:16)

Sorry, that’s Mark 16:16. Here’s the LITV:

The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.

suburbanite on August 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM

11.57 days per victim.

That’s a steep quantity discount.

Kralizec on August 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I don’t know the details, and you probablby don’t either.
Virus-X on August 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Only a fool projects his own ignorance to others…

tommylotto on August 20, 2009 at 2:50 PM

‘Life imprisonment’ means you’re going to die in prison, unless parole is a possibility. Period, dot, end of story. What possible difference could the means of his death make to the requirement of the sentence?

One could argue that he’s already having that sentence cut short by his terminal illness.

Three months in prison will not bring back one day with a loved one.

Frostbite on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Three months out of prison won’t either.

James on August 20, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3