Scotland frees terminally ill Lockerbie bomber

This is according to Gadhafi's son:

It's absolutely disgusting that he would flaunt this, even if it's true. While the British government denies this happened, you have to wonder. If it's true, it's a disgrace. He's probably not even dying, but who can say?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32513985/ns/world_news-terrorism/

 

I have to admit, I do not care that much about the issue as it was presented. If he is terminally ill, and I believe the Scottish authorities checked, he does not have much left to live - and dying from cancer is never pleasant. As for the whole compassionate angle, I think it was most likely made up, but his case has never been a clear-cut one. The way he was convicted was sketchy at best; there are many people who have walked free with a more convincing prosecution. He was convicted for political reasons, and now he is released for political reasons.

Of course, he was given a hero's welcome in Libya; I doubt anyone expected anything less. His innocence was a populist cause there for a while, and releasing him provided Qaddafi with an easy way to give the country something to celebrate - incidentally, I believe, on his 40th anniversary in power. Plus, I think this was also related to the Bulgarian nurses affair that ended some two years ago. I am not sure made that much news worldwide, so I will summarize it here: several Bulgarian nurses and a doctor (Palestinian) were convicted for intentionally spreading AIDS in a children's hospital in Benghazi and sentenced to death. After a long diplomatic negotiation and the intervention of the EU foreign affairs commissioner (and the French president), their sentence was commuted to life in prison and they were sent to Sofia to serve their sentence there. Do I need to tell you what welcome they received and how long it took for them to get a full pardon? Libya is doing the same thing.

 

The UK version of lifetime sentence pretty much lasts that long. Lifetime under your belt just makes parole somewhat scarier than a typical conditional release. Recently, we've had, here in Poland, a case where a guy was ported back here with a UK lifetime sentence. The principle was full recognition of Schengen or something penalty, meaning the default mode of lowering the foreign sentence to the maximum sentence possible in Polish law for the same offence (which was 12 years) wouldn't apply, but it wasn't very clear or interpretively inescapable, so the Supreme Court had some work to do on the recognition decision. In fact, even a normal Polish 12 would've been harsher to him in terms of years behind the bars than a UK lifetime! There was an outcry of sorts when it seemed lifetime given in UK could mean a Polish lifetime - on the face life is life, but the execution of the penalty is governed by national laws and what if you plentifully award lifetimes but release people on parole with equal generosity? Someone finally made the wise call that the whole situation arising from getting a UK lifetime sentence should be taken in consideration, meaning the guy would get a lifetime but on UK rules, that is with the ability to get out much sooner.

Back to the topic, it looks like a political release, but the original conviction doesn't look that great on the side of evidence and who knows what the appeal would have brought.

 

Going from a US perspective, he likely would have been executed for his crimes, meaning he would of complete 100% of his life sentence. (And I will state the obvious that if it were the Israelis that had him, I doubt he would have lived to see his trial date.)

I'm not sure I agree with that. I would think that most Americans (including our politicians) actually would be opposed to giving someone compassionate release. I don't know of anyone in jail in the US for murder who was given an early release.

 

Oh I know. I've no doubt he'd have been treated a lot harsher under the US system. I'm pointing out that his treatment is typical of the Scottish system, where the term 'life sentence' shouldn't be taken literally. I do think most 'life' sentences aren't long enough but I don't see a problem with releasing someone just before their death as long as they don't constitute a risk to the public.

I'd say a lot of US politicians do not consider the issue worth falling out with Libya over. Libya has gone from being a very troublesome rogue state to a fairly cooperative one. By the standards of dictatorships. And odd Bulgarian nurses incidents aside. Plus there's likely to be lucrative oil deals handed out in the future.

What I meant was that, publicly, a US politician would be lynched by their electorate if they were to say that. So they speak out very strongly condemning it but not doing anything behind the scenes. This is just normal politics the world over, you won't get anywhere without telling the public what they want to hear at times.

 

Oh, I understand what you mean now - and I agree. I thought you were saying that American politicians in general were not opposed to compassionate releases, which I did not agree with. This makes a lot more sense to me now that you explained it.