And another thing…

If you’re going to play your trump card of Thomas Hamilton, I’ll play mine.

What would Jesus have done if he was the Scottish Justice Minister?

Freed him or kept hept him incarcerated until his last breath.

The decision may have been ‘wrong’ on the grounds of Justice but I don’t know how you can say it was wrong on the grounds of humanity.

Tom

I usually enjoy your blog, even though I rarely agree with you.

However, this is by far one of the most bitter, resentful and disgusting blogs I have ever read. I am ashamed that you call yourself my MP.

The people of Glasgow South and Scotland reject your blood-lust politics fuelled by revenge and anger. You will find this out at the next election.

I recognise you will have a different view, so I finish with just one question. If this decision was still in the hands of Blair or Brown, and considering the pressure exerted by the USA, what do you think the outcome would have been?

They would have choked and bowed in the poodle way they have done over the last decade. The Scottish Government has taken a principled and honourable decision based on mercy for a dying man. It has made me proud to be Scottish.

Well said Tom. I agree with every word. I’d add one thing. I can’t shake the feeling that this was done simply to prove that they, the SNP government could, and so are really really important.

An excellent post Tom. Watching McAskill’s statement on C4 News, his complaint about a lack of dialogue with the FCO comes across as pathetic. The SNP obviously want powers to be ‘repatriated’ from Westminster, but given the opportunity to exercise those powers on the international stage they have acted in an almost immature fashion, failing to have the guts to stand up and justify their actions, take responsibility and instead choosing to point the finger.

One gets the impression the SNP was more concerned with taking a decision that projects a ’strong’ image of being independent of the US (perhaps contrasting to how the UK government would be expected to approach this case) – that’s why McAskills explanation is so thin.

I like Jeff’s comment.

My view is that if it’s policy to release people who have 3 months or less to live, then there was no way MacAskill should have kept him locked up.

However, I think he has really mucked up on this one – he made it a political rather than the quasi judicial decision it should have been the second he set foot in Greenock Jail. There is no way he should have visited him. That alone has damaged the standing of Scotland in the world.

Right decision, complete fiasco in the making of it, in my view.

In my opinion, this decision had more to do with politics than justice. The SNP seems to be anxious to prove that it is a government, London is an irrelevance.

I’m sure Kenny MacAskill will take comfort from having taken his time and looking at every angle before coming to the decision that he thought was right.

Just as Jack Straw did when he let the dictator Pinochet – and as you’re playing the numbers game, let’s not forget that his seventeen-year tyranny saw the death of 3,000 people in just the first month – fly back to Chile on grounds of ill health.

And just as Blair and Brown slept soundly after they cosied up to the regime that condemned those men, women and children to death.

You may, perhaps, wish to reflect on that.

I disagree and I don’t support the SNP, Tom. It is unfortunate that the appeal will not now be heard as it seems likely the real perpetrators will now escape justice forever. There is far too much that hangs around the trial from the circumstantial evidence to the treatment of the prosecution witness that has a bad smell about it; and that is before one considers the apparently disregarded evidence about Syria. In other circumstances it is likely a Scottish court would have found this man not proven.

There is a fair chance that he didn’t do it. If a pragmatic way to handle this is to let him die in dignity at home (if any cancer death is ever really dignified) then as a nation we have done the right thing. Either way he still faces an unpleasant and premature death.

Being absolutely stunned by the immoral decision taken today by a man who claims to be a Justice Minister I thought I’d ask him just how many innocant people DO you have to murder before being kept in jail until the end of your natural life. Maybe you’d like to do the same here:

http://www.kennymacaskill.co.uk/

[...] on this decision – Tom Harris MP, Labour member for Glasgow South – whatever your politics – please do read this… it is measured and very pertinent.  More particularly written by a Scot – albeit an [...]

I absolutely agree with your conclusions, Tom, if not your logic. Legally, and especially for a law making body like the Scottish Parliament, you must not consider someone as innocent, when they’ve been found guilty. An appeal would have been the only legitimate way to release Megrahi.
Given the crime and the penalty, it was safe to assume that even in good health, he would die in Greenock jail. That is not inhumane. The most important part of his sentence was to be the part where he died in custody, deprived of his family and freedom, albeit with great medical care. It took long enough to get him to jail in the first place, that he’s not even been there for that long.
Incidentally, I feel the very same should apply to the armed robber, and confirmed thug, Ronnie Biggs, despite his crime being an order of magnitude lesser.

“What would Jesus have done if he was the Scottish Justice Minister?”
Jesus would have demanded acknowlegement of the sin and repentance before absolution.

Am I actually living in a parallel universe? One where we ALL appear to think that we can act as Judge and jury??

I have my views on the case, everyone else has theirs, the problem is this.

The man was convicted by a 3 Judge panel who heard ALL the evidence as available at the time. He appealed and the evidence supporting his appeal was examined by a panel of Judges, and his appeal was rejected.

He appealed again, and asked for bail on compassionate grounds and was REFUSED this by the courts. They considered he did not qualify for bail on compassionate grounds.

I am afraid that too many people think that they ‘know’ whether he was guilty or not, but this is not grounds to release him. He was convicted of murdering 270 people, and I am afraid that the idea that this convicted mass murderer has been released from prison because he is dying from cancer makes my stomach turn. Compassion for a mass murderer- get real.

MacAskill made a huge blunder today, and I hope, more in hope than anticipation, that the Scottish Parliament passes a motion of no confidence in Mr MacAskill for his handling and behaviour in this case.

The best thing that can happen for MacAskill is that Al Megrahi dies- and soon.

No Hamilton would not have been released.
There you go Tom. That’s the answer to your question. Frankly I get the impression that the SNP have thrown their judicial compass (well we’re supposed to have moral ones) out the windows and are resorting to gesture politics with the USA.
Before reading your post I had thought he should’ve been released but you changed my mind.

Jeff said:”What would Jesus have done if he was the Scottish Justice Minister?”

Jesus said: “love your enemies” and went on at length about the need for forgiveness.

He also said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.. and unto god the things that are God’s”.

So I interpret that to say:
1. forgive your enemies.
BUT
let them be dealt with according to the law..

That is NOT a licence to free all prisoners because if you apply it literally you would forgive all offenders at once , none would go to jail and the world would be a lot more unsafe.

So forgive yes.

Being cynical there have been far too many prisoners released from British jails on compassionate grounds who immediately became well again:

Think Earnest Saunders (Guinness) and General Pinochet.

Next you’ll be telling me as we let this multi murderer go free after 8 years that the 12 year sentence for the murderer of Baby P is too long.

It’s great to be compassionate until you start playing with other people’s lives and safety. Releasing this man early tells any future terrorist you can murder 200 people in the UK and get away with 8 years in jail.

As for medical evidence etc. it’s a politician making a judgement.

Can anyone explain to me how a politician making a judgement is not a political act..?

Note I do not discuss guilt. The man was tried, did not defend himself by speaking , was found guilty, appealed and failed and his country paid $800million compensation.

On circumstantial grounds all those are an admission of guilt.

And are factual .
All the rest is hypothesis or conspiracy theory.

Dear Tom. I see you have upset the Illiberal Conspiracy.
Very Well Done.

Megrahi should’ve been released, given his medical condition.

In exchange for the appeal being dropped, a proper judicial review should’ve been launched in its stead.

There’s too much evidence the defence team _still_ aren’t allowed to see, that there’s no way that even the appeal would amount to a fair trial.

The fact is, he was convicted largely based on the say-so of a man who “identified” him days after reading in a magazine that he was a suspect, and was paid off large sums of money by the US Government. This -alone- should have been enough to render to conviction unsafe years ago, but that would’ve been politically unpopular given the sanctions that were put in place against Libya.

Libya itself was put in a position where it was easier just to hand over some cash and admit responsibility in return for getting the sanctions lifted (do the maths on that one; the millions Libya handed over were a drop in the ocean compared to the value of the sanctions).

The whole affair stinks to high heaven, and with Megrahi very close to death, it’s unlikely his appeal would have ever, even in the best case scenario with respect to evidence, been able to run its course long enough to find out what the hell the US and UK Governments are hiding.

And yes, if a prisoner has three months to live and the prison service has recommended their release, get the hell on with it without politicising it, which appears to be something members of all parties are guilty of right now.

I think that the comment about Pinochet is a good one.

Also Blair and his cabinet knew that bombing Iraq would kill
children but still thought that the war was a good thing.

Tom, by nature you are exceptionally tribal so in so I am not
surprised at your first instinct is to attack the SNP but I would
have hoped your basic humanity would have made you pause
for thought. Jeff was correct in asking WWJD. Answer: choose
differently than Tom

Apologies I forgot to add:

“In an announcement which lasted more than 20 minutes, the justice secretary acknowledged Megrahi had shown no compassion to his victims.”

http://tinyurl.com/l5c2du

I was under the mistaken impression that remorse was a prerequisite condition for early release of prisoners.

Obviously not for mass murderers.

So well done .. a politician blows a hole in almost every rule and release free the biggest mass murderer ever seen in the UK…

This week has witnessed two examples which highlight the continuing and growing gap between leading political actors and the rest of us. This week has shown, if ever we really needed reminding, that authority and decent standards in the Scotland are evaporating.
A man who butchered and murdered a Lithuanian woman in Angus had his prison sentence cut from 20 years to 18 years. The victim suffered a horrific death. The BBC is reporting appeal judges have ruled this criminal must now “serve” at least 18 years. My point here is that the initial sentence of just 20 years was in itself scandalous, which during the appeal was no doubt debated and studied and decided upon that it was just two years to long for a murder that resulted in the victim’s head being chopped off. Is it not truly shocking that we have laws and protocols that have to consider appeals like this.
Today, a convicted mass murderer responsible for the deaths of 270 people was released from jail as he is soon to die. If Al –Megrahi’s defence were in possession of evidence that cast doubt on his conviction, then, to use one of Mr MacAskill’s favourite phrases from today, “due process” should have taken place.
What do these examples say about Scottish Justice and Human Rights (and the political process of devolution). Not alot. They clearly illustrate that many of our politicians and judiciary are not acting in our interests, and that they appear to be caught up and living in their own bubble of academia in which books spout on about equality and fairness and sticking one up the nasty state.
The above appeal judges and Mr MacAskill have clearly displayed this week how out of touch they are with the people they are meant to serve. They have shown they serve only their own values from a position in society that most of us can only dream about.
I believe Tom sums this difference up in part of a sentence contained in the above blog. It reads:
“His liberal instincts which allow him to sympathise with the perpetrators,……”
That is the difference between the public and the centres of power like Mr MacAaskill and the above appeal judges. They are far too liberal and resort to their own values when making judgements which are very contrary to public opinion and decency.
A bad day for Scotland.

This is a very dissapointing event and you must be ashamed that one of your countrymen has done this. I think it reflects very badly on the whole of Scotland as when it came to the crunch Scotland has bottled it.
You must take shared responsibility for this as your party has created the country that has allowed this to happen.

It is a great shame on Scotland we have all been let down by this weakness for that is what it is.

I was intrigued by your mention of the decision having been made by a “minority Scottish Government”. Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the decision, are you questioning the legitimacy of Mr MacAskill in being able to make it? I may be wrong, but I detect a hint of the sadly all too typical Scottish Labour MP reaction to the realities of devolved government. It’s been 10 years now.

Jeff said, “What would Jesus have done if he was Scottish Justice Minister?”

Matthew 25:36 makes that quite clear:

“I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” It does NOT say, “I was in prison, and ye released me on compassionate grounds”.

As a previous poster said, absolution follows acknowledgment of the sin, repentance and penance…

Pippy: “It’s been 10 years now.”

No, we’ve had minority rule for just over two years. And the point of my mentioning it was to reassure our international allies that this decision was not one taken by the whole nation, but rather by 47 individuals in the Scottish Parliament.

Tom

Like Ross, I too enjoy your blog but don’t always agree with your views. And I even agree with you that this decision was the wrong one.

But I don’t share your vengeful, hate-filled comments, riddled with predictable rhetoric:

“Before he became an MSP and then justice minister in the SNP Government, MacAskill was a defence solicitor. His liberal instincts which allow him to sympathise with the perpetrators, rather than the victims of crime, have not let him down today.”

Such crass and frankly twisted commentary seems uncharacteristic. Would you say the same about Donald Finlay QC?

But I would probably guess that if MacAskill had said today that Megrahi was to die in Greenock, you would still have managed to disagree with him. You’re a politician after all.

As someone who often disagrees with your views (and having read a number of comments on this issue) may I say that your post is the most cogent I have seen.

The Scottish Government has been guilty of muddled thinking and their decision is ultimately illogical.

The only valid ground for release would be serious doubt over the conviction.

But the stated ground is compassion.
I respect those who believe that this is the Christian thing to do, but I disagree.

This decision will reinforce the view that we are soft, not tough, on crime.
And we will all suffer from that.

“If you’re going to play your trump card of Thomas Hamilton, I’ll play mine.

What would Jesus have done if he was the Scottish Justice Minister?”

Oh jeffy, Is this the same Jesus/God who puts every person in history, alive now, or yet to come who don’t join his fan club in hell for ALL ETERNITY?

Tom, you start off by comparing Mr Al-Megrahi to Thomas Hamilton, but later on concede that he might be innocent.

There’s so much political shenanigans involved here from start to finish that I doubt if he is guilty. The West wanted Libya back into the ‘fold’ and so Lockerbie had to be sorted out somehow.

I thought when Bush compiled his ‘Axis of Evil’ that is was odd he didn’t include Libya.

The terrible injustice now is that Mr Al-Megrahi was made to drop his appeal. Who knows what we might have learned?

But again, it’s all hush hush stuff. Even the families get kept in the dark every time: 7/7, Dr Kelly, Mr De Menezes, etc. We’re just expected to accept the official version of what happened no matter what the evidence says to the contrary.

“Scottish Politics” left this comment on Iain Dale’s blog which I rather like:

“To allow Mr al-Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison would be vengeance, not justice and it is important for the sake of our society that this distinction is always uppermost in our minds. Vengeance is rarely just and never merciful and breeds only resentment and hate.”

Another positive thing to come out of this is that it has annoyed Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and David Cameron. Every cloud…

As Mr MacAskill says, Mr Al-Megrahi now ‘faces justice from a higher power’. Rest assured, if he is guilty, he won’t be welcomed into paradise and have a harem waiting.

A shameful decision, and Tom it’s good to see at least one Labour MP voicing their opinion on it. It’s a shame your leader doesn’t have your conviction.

Why did Mr al-Megrahi instruct his lawyer, last week, to drop his appeal as the Justice Secretary was only, from what he said, on Friday night in position to decide on the applications?

It was not to allow the application to proceed under the “Prisoner Transfer Agreement” to go ahead, as the Crown appeal against the too lenient sentence is still ongoing and, at least as far as I have read, the Lord Advocate has not decided if that should be dropped. Therefore, to that extent, there remain live criminal proceedings.

But the application for compassionate leave can be dealt with even if proceedings are ongoing. Mr al-Megrahi could have sought compassionate transfer back home, whilst continuing his appeal, and this could then proceed, even after his death.

Mr al-Megrahi, and his legal team (all of whom are exceedingly capable), would have been taking a dreadful risk by dropping the appeal where there remained a chance the compassionate release might have been refused. Is it likely such a risk was taken?

In addition, Mr al-Megrahi has already applied to the Court for bail on health grounds and been refused.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC68.html

Why was there no further application to the court, which, from their deliberations on the previous occasion, would consider the very issues before the Justice Secretary?

The Justice Secretary sought advice from the Parole Board. One of the issues addressed by the Parole Board may well have been acceptance of guilt. Bearing in mind Mr al-Megrahi’s statement tonight, he admits no guilt. Try looking for a “compassionate” decision from the judicial system in Scotland whilst still denying guilt – it’s not easy!

If you care to read the judgment from the first appeal by Mr al-Megrahi, reported at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/C104_01.html you will see that the court addressed at length the nature of circumstantial evidence, and how without a “smoking gun” it could lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstantial case here is that Mr al-Megrahi was prevailed on to drop his appeal in return for an agreement that he would be released. This clears the decks, and means that the decision about any further inquiry will be taken elsewhere, as the Justice Secretary repeatedly said today.

The potential of the appeal going publicly into the issues identified by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and causing problems either for the Government (UK or Scottish)or the prosecution service no longer exists.

Amongst colleagues in the legal profession, there is a sizable body of opinion that the conviction was useful, taking account of political considerations, and the evidence put forward was done with such considerations in mind. Many believe the conviction is correct. Most agree that there remain many important unanswered questions.

As was said by Brian Taylor in his BBC blog, who benefits from what has happened?

The Justice Secretary has had an awful decision to make. The one thing everyone can agree on is that, as he said, he would be criticised whatever he decided to do.

Finally, to comment on Tom’s question, Thomas Hamilton would not have been released in these circumstances, or if he had been the politicians involved would have ended their careers in doing so. Will there be the same effect for Mr MacAskill when the people aggrieved are American, rather than Scottish?

Tom – thanks for the response. Very few decisions taken by politicians are also taken by the “whole nation” as you suggest (even so called majority governments such as Labour at Westminster hold far less than 50% popular support). If Labour were unhappy with permitting the transfer of full devolved powers for the governance of Scotland to the SNP, they should have stepped up in May 2007 instead of fading away… but that’s a whole different debate I know. Point is too late now to bring it up in the context of this issue – just looks like whining which is not surprising in the context of the hatred that exists for the devolved settlement amongst the ranks of Scottish Labour MPs.

Hamilton was an insane psychopathic egomaniac.

Al-Megrahi acknowledging the guilty verdict was a politically motivated terrorist and a lot of these are still walking the streets.

I’m presuming it is hard for politicians to see difference.

Neither remain a threat to our society. This eye for an eye stuff – isn’t really the way forward.

This was always going to be a tough call for the Scottish Executive. I am sure there are a few relieved politicians in London and in opposition in Edinburgh – who are glad they didn’t have to make this call. The subject demands a more mature debate.

Well said Tom!

There’s no way on earth a Labour government would have released a convicted terrorist mass murderer early.

Especially if you don’t count the numerous Irish republican scum bag, mass murdering terrorists let out early by the Labour government.

I’m assuming the various affronts to justice I’m referring to weren’t in you name either, and you made that clear at the time, of course?

Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his 270 victims compassion when they were brutally murdered, he is a convicted mass murderer however while he may not of had compasson or mercy we do. Scotland should not lower themselves to this level by denying his release. We have shown Mr Megrahi compassion as Mr MacAskill like many has a conscience as the man is dying everyone should be allowed a some degree of compassion when they are dying from an incurable illness, and full credit to MacAskill for standing up to the americans

I’m not an SNP supporter (pretty close to an SNP hater, in fact) but I absolutely support Kenny MacAskill in the way he made his decision. It’s in accordance with the law, and with the guidelines which Labour ministers have previously followed too. If these are the sort of beliefs you have on compassion and mercy, Tom, then I’m seriously glad you’re never likely to be in a position to make this sort of decision. Unfortunately Labour seems to have decided that being the ‘hang’em and flog’em’ party is the way to win votes. They’ve lost mine, that’s for sure.

Should Thomas Hamilton be released if he is on death’s door? Of course. I can’t see what good would be achieved by forcing a man to die alone in prison, rather than with his family around him. That sort of bloodlust might go down well in America – hopefully in Scotland we’ve learned to adopt a more enlightened (Christian?) approach.

I’m quite proud to be a Scot today, to be honest.

(Still hate the Nats, MacAskill excepted, though)

If Megrahi has only 3 months to live, can we hold him to it?

It’s wrong that he has been released. I’m not quite sure what the SNP thinking was or how they could ever justify it. They must realise that with the power of office comes the power of responsibility and they haven’t acted very responsibly.

One was a psychopathic killer and the other was a politically motivated terrorist, this fully accepting Megrahi’s guilt.

There is massive difference.

Neither are now a danger to society.
The eye for an eye stuff needs to stop.

This was going to be a tough call for any UK politician and if the law allows compassionate release if someone has less than 3 months to live ..it is legal.

I would have hoped and anticipated a labour administration to make the same call on this in these difficult circumstances.

I have never understood why Pinochet was allowed to go back – could you explain it to me Tom? And I don’t mean to be shoutey and aggressive. I am genuinely mystified why this man who caused so much misery for so many years was sent on his way. As far as this case is concerned I have heard representatives of the Families who are less than happy with the guilty verdict and the trial, with the lack of a jury and the dubious witnessess and who seem sure that he was set up. All the evidence was circumstantial…. And if there is a chance of this – surely he should be treated with compassion. Also – what is prison for? Revenge? That is not what we do in Britain, is it? Some people just seem to be upset that Obama is cross. This is not a reason to keep a dying man in prison is it? Incidentally, my brother lived in America and flew to Britain to see me about seven weeks before he died of the same disease. His flight was also safe, but sadly, he was by no means comfortable. People with advanced cancer rarely are. Lets not fool ourselves that this man has been sent off rubbing his hands into the sun filled future. On earth, I mean. Not wanting to go down any religious routes here!

[...] Tom Harris on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. He ain’t impressed.2. Conservative History Journal on [...]

@Macbeth: That entirely depends on your denomination/religion. My Jesus is forgiving, but others have a more damnation-orientated Jesus. I have real issues invoking Jesus or indeed any religion in an argument since it’s so very objective (as evidenced by the last 5000 years of religious warfare).

@Hamish: I think the idea that this condones terrorism or shows we’re soft on crime is a bit of a stretch. It’s certainly not the issue at stake here. First off, terrorists don’t tend to be people who are thinking about the potential punishment or indeed anything post-struggle (whatever they claim to be fighting for). No person who believes in something strongly enough to kill for it is going to say “And hey, all I have to do to get away with it is to get a terminal illness!”.

I personally support his release. He showed no compassion to his victims, he did not allow them to live out their lives in their home with their families. That was wrong. For us to show him no compassion would also be wrong. I believe we are better than him because we are able to act compassionately and without vengeance.

I am genuinely disappointed to see the phrase “liberal instincts” being used in a sneering and pejorative manner by a Labour MP

Couldn’t agree more.

I have given up on any chance of sleep tonight due to looking after my 8 month god-daughter who is determined to sing and cry the night away. This subject has been stuck in my head, and a further thought niggles me. You say, and I paraphrase, that there is suspicion that this chap is innocent of the charge, but even if this was the case releasing him would not be the right thing to do. But do we not have a strict rule that you must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? Is that not why so many rape cases collapse – because in a case of he says / she says there is a case of reasonable doubt> Lack of sleep may be addling my brain, but if there is a reasonable doubt should he have been convicted? And if there is a reasonable doubt – which there does appear to be – should we not send this man on his way to die a horrible death at home? Because we are a civilised people, are we not? Baby in arms now snoring, so will try to settle her and do the same thing.

Your blog seems to be broke, Tom.

I loved hearing Eddie Mair grill MacAskill over his ‘higher power’ remark. Seemed petty at first, but then one realised that MacA was employing a pretty pathetic excuse for his action. Release ‘em all, and let God decide..?

The fact that this scunner has a family at home and would be forced to die abroad are factors in my view.

This is the right time for mercy, which might also have been shown to the child murderer, if he had served time, his decease was imminent and he would have been secured from attacks and from committing further crimes for the final few months of his life.

No comparison between the two cases Tom.
Can’t argue against the compassionate grounds. We will never know the full truth behind these bombs.
I think there should be an inquiry into the evidence.
As for upsetting the US. Tough.
Since when should we listen to a Country which condones and even advocates Capital Punishment?

Tom, well done for letting us have your views,right or wrong, on this issue (although I happen to think you are right.

But I notice that much is being made of the fact that this is a Scottish issue. That being the case, I for one would be interested to hear the view of another Scot, Gordon Brown.

But I’m not holding my breath. Perhaps he’s too busy holidaying, re-reading his own book ‘Courage’.

Seems like MPs were correct:

“Victims of crime are being failed by the justice system, which is weighted in favour of criminals”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5979008/Victims-of-crime-failed-by-justice-system-says-MPs-report.html

Until someone comes up with a convincing argument otherwise: and death by prostrate cancer is not otherwise Myra Hindley should be freed now – she “only ” killed under 20 kids-

this case proves that the UK’s Criminal (in)Justice System serves to protect the guilty and let the innocent victims suffer the results of their crimes.

This thing makes me so angry, I have no faith in anything this country does any more. Our leaders are weak, the country is being constantly shamed, and our national pride is all but gone, do we no longer have a sense of right and wrong?

I feels as if our moral core has been destroyed by a government that is more interested in management and spin than doing what’s right.

It’s been a rather terrible last few years hasn’t it.

@ macbeth – while I’m glad of your comment refuting Jeff, I would have put it a bit better in that Jesus is a man of justice and unless you repent (and recognise him as Lord) He will incarcerate you in hell for an eternity. As I was once informed “Even forgiven sin has consequences”

Tom – I agree with you, but have a read of Dizzy’s thinking as I’m thinking the same as him in that we will have something from this to benefit the country! http://dizzythinks.net/2009/08/obligatory-lockerbie-post.html

Do we actually have a change is stance regarding a life sentence? Is a life sentence now just a name and essentially, no-one will ever die in prison ?

Ronnie Biggs a few weeks ago, today a convicted terrorist.

I’m not certain that it’s necessarily wrong but does seem there has been a policy change.

Tom, if you are so angry at this then where was your anger at your seniors in the Labour party allowing al-megrahi to come under the prisoner exchange scheme in the first place (something the SNP tried to change).

Also – and this is where I am surprised by you – it’s very easy for everyone in opposition to say ‘aye, well I would have done it differently’ because they don’t have to. No matter what decision was made, someone would be unhappy.

And as others have said, Pinochet was hardly a saint.

I listened to David Milliband on Radio 4 today being “slurred”.

Summarising his views a) nothing to do with him and b) he has no opinion c) Scotland only decision.

However, he said a curios thing – Megrahi was NOT eligible for the Prisoner Transfer scheme because there are legal actions pending. In this he wasn’t referring to Megrahi’s appeal (dropped) but that the Tariff was being reviewed as it may be too lenient.

Should make an interesting review considering Megrahi is now free. It does seem that a process here is completely flawed. Rather like SMP’s debating the issue after the event rather than before. Still gives the politicians a reason to chat.

This blog post comes over as disingenuous.
I agree with some of the comment but on the whole it is a cant.

So, Mr harris, you will be pushing for a full UK public enquiry then, given your disappointement that the appeal has been dropped? I doubt it.

You do not correct posters that Scottish justice process is NOT a devolved issue and has never been a UK remit.

Like it or not (personally I don’t like compassionate leave for convicted murderes) it is the established process in Scotland and England. have you been lobbying to change it as an MP?
I guess not.

Abandoning the appeal was only a requirement for a prisoner transfer agreement. The appeal iszsue is now just a smokescreen, the guy is going to be dead long before any appeal process. It is now irrelevant no matter what. The families want the evidence to be re_examined and in full. So, where can I sign your petition to open a UK public inquiry?

On the most crass level the guy has 3 months of painful and expensive cancer treatment left before he dies, why should the UK or Scottish government pay for that?

On another level the Scottish (and possibly UK) government showing compassion is surely a better message to be sending to those in the Muslim world who would harm us than one of blood lust.

Changing the topic slightly, people should stop calling this guy a terrorist, he isn’t. He was an agent of the state and thus was a war criminal. The fact he was tried as a civillian terrorist was politically motivated. What that does to the decision to release him early I’m not sure, but if he was following orders then why aren’t we also going after those that gave those orders?

From a Man For All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Just to let you know the kind of company you are in:
“Compassion is no substitute for justice.” Rush Limbaugh

As an aside, anyone know who Lord Mandlesson met on holiday (hint: think Libyan)

Also, I do not think we should be taking morality lessons from a country that executes minors and the metally ill.

I notice there is no mention of the two faced yanks and the event that started all this. The Captain of the ship that shot down the Iran Air flight killing all 300 aboard, got a medal.

At least we KNOW he did it, this conviction is unsafe and the grounds for his release stinks no matter what view you take. But the fact remains, the real culprits got away, erm Scot free

@Triffid “Dangerous Mind” 100:

Yes, there’s been a policy change.

A change from “what you thought was the policy” to “what is actually the policy”.

I’m not sure many people have died in prison, except unexpectedly, for decades. About the only exception is people who would, even at death’s door, pose a danger to themselves or others (and usually such folk are in secure accommodation rather than prison in any case).

Evidence to the contrary welcome, of course.

A little reading about the subject of the original conviction shows that the evidence was never there in the first place.

His conviction was outrageous and I suspect that the Scottish government could foresee an embarrassing retrial or quashing of his conviction in the near future – hence their need to move quickly and get him out of jail.

Kenny MacAskill: “However, Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power.”

Mr MacAskill, hang your head in shame. This type of stupidity has no place in politics at any time, let alone Justice, but especially so when there is such a contentious issue at stake.

So what happened? You went to the prison, met with him and you prayed together and came out thinking he’d found Jesus/Allah/whatever and been remorseful so you let him go home?

As if I wasn’t having a hard enough time defending his decision on compassionate grounds he then comes out with this idiotic statement. Shame on you.

Kenny(and i am not political point scoring) was embarrassing(toe curling) to watch.
He needs to be replaced just not up to the role I am afraid.

This decision will in the future cause all kinds of repercussions (mostly bad) for the Scottish Government of whatever political bias.

How bad does a mass murder have to be not to get compassionate release from now on?

Hamilton wouldn’t have been released for the same reason Myra Hindley was not released – because it would not have been possible to guarantee their safety except at huge public expense.

That is also the reason why it was decided not to release Megrahi to reside in Scotland.

That would have been the other option to sending him back to Libya to die. He could not really have stayed in Greenock Prison or any other Scottish prison because they are prisons, not hospitals. When someone reaches the level Megrahi will soon be reaching they have practically no immunity left so it is really not an option to treat them in prison.

So the choice was release him to go home and die or release him to a hospice or some other location in Scotland where he would have required a very high level of security to guarantee his safety or, possibly, they could have sent him to an American prison. That would not have satisfied the requirement that he should serve his sentence in Scotland but it would have meant he died in prison.

I’m not convinced that this was the right decision by the Scottish Govt, but is it so very different from the Early Release Scheme operated in Northern Ireland from 1998? 420 convicted terrorists released back into the community before their sentences were completed.

Maybe the bigger picture is more important?

@joe wilson
One was a psychopathic killer and the other was a politically motivated terrorist, this fully accepting Megrahi’s guilt.

There is massive difference.

Neither are now a danger to society.
The eye for an eye stuff needs to stop.

They are both heartless murderers; the fact that you call one psychotic and the other a political terrorist is irrelevant. To help murder people you don’t know and are not at war with would seem to show a psychosis.

Both people would be a present danger. Now he knows he is due to die soon is he more or less likely to be a suicide bomber?

Too late now; but as he has shown no remorse I really don’t understand why he was released (remorse for his deeds is normally a precondition for early release).

“I was under the mistaken impression that remorse was a prerequisite condition for early release of prisoners.”

Madasafish, I think the minister was rferring to when Magrahi carried out the act of terrorism. I don’t know if he has shown sympathy to the victims, though if he still denies guilt, he wouldn’t express remorse.

Couldn’t agree more Tom.

The man was tried and convicted by a jury of peers, he is therefore guilty o0f the crime of murdering 270 inocent people. He is guilty such a time as given leave to appeal a retried by anoyther jury of peers. The sentencefor hius crime was life inprisionment, itself probably insufficient punishment for the crimes he committed. He should have died on prison.

Chris there is no requirement for prisoners released on compassionate grounds to show remorse. It is not parole – they are not being released to live their lives but to die.

Since his religion guarantees him eternal paradise, ten thousand slaves, seventy-two virgins and a thick carpet for destroying the infidel, he doesn’t have much to worry about, wherever he is.

By the time Pinochet was arrested in London, the Chilean Government was a reputable member of the international community and his fate should have been decided in Santiago.

It wasn’t his release that was wrong, it was his arrest in the first place.

Ah, but as David Miliband says – terrorism is sometimes justifiable…

Terrorism is sometimes justified.

Anyone killing Hitler and his general staff would have been considered heroic.

I think the discriminator is motive.

Blowing up an aircraft because the occupants don’t share your particular brand of religion is not motive enough for me.

It’s interesting how time alters perception. A few comments here making an association between Libyan terrorism in the 1980s and Islamic fundamentalism today. Suggestions such as Chris’ that Megrahi might be a suicide bomber or Liberanos that it was religiously motivated.

It’s as if people can’t remember 1988 was very different. Or are they imagining a continuum between Soviet sponsored Libya and modern day fundamentalism? There isn’t any. This happened in 1988 remember – the fundies were the ‘good guys’ then, America was funding Bin Laden.

This wasn’t a suicide bomber, it was Semtex in a transistor radio as I recall – same explosive of choice as the IRA.

What I find strange is that the UK negotiated the lifting of sanctions against Libya and has probably done more than any other western country to rehabilitate Libya.

That’s why it is also a bit weird for a Labour MP to take this very black-and-white attitude to Megrahi because if he is beyond the pale how about his paymasters?

It has never been suggested that Megrahi was acting as an individual, even by those who believe in his guilt. He was a Libyan intelligence agent. The Libyan Government paid compensation for the Lockerbie bombing and accepted liability (though like Megrahi they denied actually doing it). So it is strange that it is acceptable to do business with the Government which has accepted liability for the Lockerbie bombing but it is not acceptable to release the man convicted of implementing the order because he is dying.

Funny old world politics.

What, all we all of a sudden giving out FREE Lunches? Since when??? Under what premise? Did this guy learn his lesson? I doubt he would have changed his actions if he knew he would have gone to jail. These people don’t care, but only to KILL America. They hate us…helllloooooo!!! Wake up people.

[...] I know is that I am unable to make up my mind. I don’t quite understand how Tom Harris and Iain Dale can both be so adamant that Al-Megrahi is guilty and should die in prison. Some have [...]

I for one am very moved by Scotland’s decision to release this dying man.

I understand the outrage and I know this must have been a very difficult decision, but this compassion is something we can all learn from.

Even though he is dying,he should not be trusted and he should still be monitored.

[...] is keeping silent on it (despite being headed by Scots – though it seems to be letting MPs rip at the SNP) but from a PR point of view what’s the damage done to Scotland and Scottish industries now [...]

[...] Tom Harris asked if Thomas Hamilton would have received such a release. He noted: I can’t shake the feeling that not far beneath the surface of this debate has been an assumption — and if not an assumption, then certainly a suspicion — that Al-Megrahi is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted eight years ago. [...]

No doubt, Tom, you would have been as appalled as the rest of us when the 1968 Mail Lai massacre attracted hardly any significant criticism in the USA, and a minor sentence.

And it does seem that americans hold american lives a long way above those of the rest of us when these matters are discussed.

I think the Scottish Justice Minisiter was quite right to exercise mercy for a dying man, in his last 3 months’ of life.

And it was his decision, all parties having decided to pursue the matter via Scottish justice, and therefore the possibility of Scottish clemency.

Mai Lai sets a lousy benchmark in all but one factor: Lt Calley has now openly and publicly apologised, he thinks of his crime frequently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/my-lai-massacre-officer-apologises-40-years-on-1776181.html

If al-Megrahi can speak his truth before his demise that may set another benchmark.

[...] Tom Harris MP asks with such sickening sanctimoniousness “why was he considered for compassionate release [...]

Toms asks?
“WOULD Thomas Hamilton, who murdered 16 children and their teacher in in a primary school in Dunblane 13 years ago, have been released from jail on compassionate grounds had he (a) lived to be convicted and (b) developed terminal cancer?”

I would hope so. When justice is used for vengeance we are all in deep do-do.