any opinions about the release of the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie Bomber for compassionate reasons... and maybe some comments about his hero's reception when he arrived in Libya
seems I remember he was given a LIFE sentence .... dying of prostate cancer while in prison would probably have fulfilled that ...
Should have rotted in there for all eternity. Or loaded him with C4 and them sent him home to his "hero's" welcome.
Here's a thought: If they had to treat him (for the pain, whatever), while in prison that would have cost significant amounts of money. Now they have no worries about him living long, but don't have the expense of his health care...
Maybe it was a cost-effective move?
Well, as someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife, or even in souls..
I hate it. If someone isn't punished in the here & now, they're not being punished. Dying early of cancer is the only "compassion" he should have recieved-without it, he'd suffer where he belongs for another 25yrs. or so (an aside: this is also why I'm against the death penalty in most cases. The dead don't suffer for what they've done.).
Still, the authorities might have gotten away with it if people hadn't partied on his return like they were at Burning Man or something..
I'd have given him smallpox to take home with him.
Toyman01 wrote:Should have rotted in there for all eternity. Or loaded him with C4 and them sent him home to his "hero's" welcome.
Funny you mention that..just this weekend the Saudis tried a little "compassion" of their own..
Hmmmm, just a thought, is this cancer contagious.....
aussiesmg wrote:Hmmmm, just a thought, is this cancer contagious.....
Prostate cancer? My friends that work in health care say that every man will get it, provided he lives long enough, tho..
friedgreencorrado wrote:Toyman01 wrote:Should have rotted in there for all eternity. Or loaded him with C4 and them sent him home to his "hero's" welcome.
Funny you mention that..just this weekend the Saudis tried a little "compassion" of their own..
I'm thinking the Saudi's will re-visit that compassionate idea - much like the Brits, who may have been caught releasing a murderer as part of an oil deal.
Then again, maybe not. The current administration seems to prefer writing nasty letters.
The Brits screwed-the-pooch and we'll be there to adopt the puppies; it's the diplomatic thing to do.
davidjs wrote:Here's a thought: If they had to treat him (for the pain, whatever), while in prison that would have cost significant amounts of money. Now they have no worries about him living long, but don't have the expense of his health care...
Maybe it was a cost-effective move?
I can't say I like that attitude. How long his natural life will last is irrelevant; for the murders he committed he should be punished every day he lives, no matter how few or many those days may be. If money is an object where do I send a check?
Will wrote:davidjs wrote:Here's a thought: If they had to treat him (for the pain, whatever), while in prison that would have cost significant amounts of money. Now they have no worries about him living long, but don't have the expense of his health care...
Maybe it was a cost-effective move?
If money is an object where do I send a check?
Denying his meds would hasten the end-result.
Saves money and time.
Honestly, the intent of the sentence was to take away the rest of his life.
If they send him home to die, as long as he actually does so, I am ok with it. Not like he is leaving jail to hop on a cruise ship... He lost the rest of his life as his sentence dictated, Jail is needed to take away his freedoms while he was healthy, now that he is dieing his illness takes the place of a jail cell.
Not that I would be against letting him die in prison, but I don't mind him being let out. He may not be in jail anymore... but he hasn't gotten his freedom back.
I wonder if the scots know something we don't. Not saying that he is, but maybe they found out he was innocent and don't want an innocent man dieing in there prison.
Joey
His release was to get a favorable oil contract with Libya.
From what I've read, he was also convicted on very slim and questionable evidence. I wasn't in the courtroom so I don't know one way or the other, but I'm just sayin'.
In 2002, Libya offered compensation to the Lockerbie victims' families. Then in 2003 Libya formally admitted responsibility for the bombing. Let me ask this question: if the 'right' man wasn't in prison, what real reason would they have had to admit responsibility?
That bastard should have rotted in prison for the rest of his life, cancer or no cancer. What chance did his victims have with the sentence he chose to pass on them?
So now Gadhafi can once again preen and posture, having made the West look like fools again. He gets it all: his people think he's a god and BP forks over $900 million for oil, most of which will go to him. Hmmm- I wonder how much that Scotsman is getting under the table? Yeah, I went there. My one regret about Ronald Reagan was that he didn't take Gadhafi himself out in that retaliation raid.
Jensenman wrote:My one regret about Ronald Reagan was that he didn't take Gadhafi himself out in that retaliation raid.
At least he made an honest attempt, unlike one of his successors.
oldsaw wrote:Jensenman wrote:My one regret about Ronald Reagan was that he didn't take Gadhafi himself out in that retaliation raid.
At least he made an honest attempt, unlike one of his successors.
Yup, ol Dutch dropped a big one on the man's tent and killed one of his many wifes. Too bad he was off somewhere else.
