London and Washington have condemned the ‘hero’s welcome’ given to Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on his return to Libya after being freed from a life sentence in a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds because he is dying of cancer.
‘The idea that the British government … would sit down and somehow barter over the freedom or the life of this Libyan prisoner and make it all part of some business deal … it’s not only wrong, it’s completely implausible and actually quite offensive,’ said British Business Secretary Peter Mandelson.
In Washington, FBI director Robert Mueller released an angry letter he sent to Scottish minister Kenny MacAskill, who ordered the release, calling it inexplicable and detrimental to justice.
‘Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world,’ Mueller wrote in the letter posted on the FBI’s website.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s office issued a copy of a letter he wrote to Gaddafi on Aug. 20 expressly asking him to refrain from a ‘high-profile’ welcome for Megrahi.
The action speaks for itself.
The death penalty for mass murder would prevent travesties of justice such as this. His sentence was 27 years. He murdered 270 people. He served only 8 years…slightly more than 1/3 of his sentence. He brutally ripped apart 270 men, women, and children with explosives and Scotland just let him go.
That is not justice. No justice, no peace. Almighty God, who hears the cry of the poor and the down trodden; who hears the voices of the blood of victims crying out from the ground; have mercy on your people and on all peoples and give us justice in this case. May the weight of your righteous wrath fall upon all those involved in this heinous crime, whether accessories before the fact or after the fact, and let them be judged in your perfect scales and punished for their crimes against all the victims of this injustice. Please have mercy on those that repent and confess their sin. In your name, Lord Jesus, we pray. Amen.
Um. I don’t mean to be mean to Gordon Brown, but isn’t a letter that asks Gaddafi not to make a big public display of Lockerbie an admission that he knows this doesn’t look good and that the peasants are going to be infuriated?
Reminds me of Episcopal bishops being fine with heresy as long as it is kept hidden. Or as long as nobody says it outloud. Hence those who notice it and point it out are “divisive.”
Wouldn’t such a letter — released by Brown — be even more infuriating to the peasants? “Dear Mr. Gaddafi, please hide what we have done to the best of your ability.”
I’ve been following this story with interest. What I find remarkable is that (other than the Scottish justice minister), no one speaking in FAVOR of the release on compassionate grounds actually believes the conviction was justified in the first place. In other words, they believe he should have been released anyway.
I think there CAN be grounds to showing compassion to those who don’t/didn’t show compassion to others, even to someone from a culture that does not understand compassion (Islam does not seem to have a concept of “grace”). The Scottish justice minister attempted to explain these grounds but it seems that the argument immediately devolved into “He’s guilty!” vs. “He suffered a miscarriage of justice!” Is there no space for “Yes, he’s guilty of a heinous offense, murdering hundreds of people, but we as a society want to demonstrate OUR compassion to the murderer by releasing him so he can die at home.” ?
No different than the silence of the HoSo-called-Bishops who are silent at Ragsdale’s ‘Abortion is a Blessing’ putrid words, who are also silent to the faux gospel and same-sex blessing and ‘gay’ ordinations, and silent to Spong’s words – all of which consign human beings to disease, decadence, early death and/or to hell.
No difference, really.
Does every prisoner who may be dying qualify for release on that basis? Then every terminally ill person in Scotland should go on a crime spree!
The ruling is perverse and unjust. Release him if there are serious doubts about the safety of the conviction. But not otherwise.
Brown’s government is liberal. Nuff said?
#5 – wait, are you saying that because of mercy, we should be able to go on crime sprees? So you are saying that most people would find random crime sprees enjoyable for their own sake? That’s… interesting. Empirically verifiable?
Mercy says the violence ends with us. It’s an invitation to stop the bloodshed.
To many Libyans, this man is a scapegoat for a crime committed by the Iranian government and the PNLP in retaliation for shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.
What Libyans think this man did is not the point. I didn’t follow his trial. Assuming that Scottish justice properly decided his guilt, he should have died in a Scottish prison hospital, his body shipped home if Libya requested.
#4
“Compassion” for the convicted murderer would come across as a lot more genuine if it were done by the choice of the family members that had their loved ones ripped apart violently by the bomb. I think that it is relatively easy for some folks to be “compassionate” at the expense of other people’s pain. (Sort of like how it is easy for some to take money from other people’s wallets rather than their own, and generously distribute it to those that refuse to work for a living.) BTW, where is your compassion for the victims that are being denied justice by the early release of the man given a fair trial and convicted?
I don’t get how some folks are so eager to dismiss justice for the victims, in this case the surviving families. How can people be so blind to the suffering that they endure because of this? Where is the pity and compassion for those that have been irrevocably harmed by the terrorist actions of this Libyan spy?
Let’s all sit back now and watch with interest the trade arrangements that follow all of this. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that trade deals were being held up until the release of this terrorist. Compassion? Quo bono?
#7: I was showing the reductio ad absurdum of the get out of jail card.
“Mercy says the violence ends with us. It’s an invitation to stop the bloodshed.”
Megrahi wasn’t subjected to violence. He was lawfully imprisoned for mass murder. He had a life sentence. This was canceled by judicial fiat – even before the Scottish parliament could debate the matter. That isn’t justice. It’s a new definition of scot-free.
“To many Libyans, this man is a scapegoat for a crime committed by the Iranian government and the PNLP in retaliation for shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.”
We all favor the homeboy. Only God and Megrabi finally know. All terrorist cases have a penumbra of uncertainty about them. But he was duly tried and convicted.
Strange, isn’t it, that if a person in the United States commits murder and is sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, and that person contracts a terminal illness while incarcerated, he or she is not compassionately released, but dies inside the prison walls? All the while of course, while he or she is permitted visits by family and friends? My, how societies differ!
The rectio ad absurdum only works if he actually decides to go on a killing spree. Otherwise, its a specious argument. The man isn’t being forgiven. He’s not being given his life. Nor is he asking for reconciliation. He’s got his life sentence. I believe such a rule demonstrates a greater magnanimity than other governments.
Personally, if I believe that someone has killed a close family member, don’t put me on the jury. I may or may not be merciful. I am not Jesus Christ.
But perhaps it does say something to the world skeptical of Christianity, that a government could offer even a sinner death at home. Justice will still be God’s, and he will still have to suffer the torments of hell.
I believe the victims have every right to be angry. As they should. I would completely understand if each and every one wanted to kill the man. Rage, vengeance, are all legitimate emotions. I’d feel them myself. His death, however, won’t bring anyone back from the dead – “let the dead bury the dead…”
Does the Scottish decision offend you? Yes, just as Jesus offended most of his compatriots. It is the narrow gate to show mercy.
Extenuating circumstances being the exception rather than the rule, of course!
[blockquote]Does the Scottish decision offend you? Yes, just as Jesus offended most of his compatriots.[/blockquote]
Let’s recap this syllogism:
1. The Scottish decision offends us.
2. Jesus offended his compatriots.
3. Therefore, that which offends us is Christ-like.
Interesting. But given how some are deeply offended by racism, real and imagined, would this not mean racism is Christ-like?