Ultimate Rhoads

I was reading that the convicted bomber of Pan Am flight 103 was released today.

I'm curious how those of you in Britain and Europe feel about this?

Personally, I agree with the Scottish government. The man will be dead from cancer soon enough. I understand that he showed no mercy on his victims, but, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems in our world today is the inability to show mercy.

One violent act begets another... maybe one merciful act may beget another? I am not naive, I just think it's worth trying.

Aside from that some people here are very biased about the 'trial' & investigation...., they think it wasn't Libie but Iran that was after the Panam bombing. (they suggest this man is innocent....)

Haven't really digged into this but Iran for sure had a much better motive after one of their Airbus planes (full with civil passengers) was shot down by the US Navy a couple months before.

If he was close to death I think that this was an act of kindness,

I am sorry that the condition of his release was that he droppe his appeal against the conviction, I believe it also means the evidence that would have been put forward is now to remain secret and will never be disclosed.
I think that it is a travesty that any new information could remain secret and that if he was inocent that he will die with this conviction on his name.

I don't believe he did and thought that it was unlikely Libiya was able to carryout this technical attack 20+ years ago, I also think it was unfair that the trial was carried out under Scotish law in the Netherlands in front of a judge with no jury sitting.
I just don't think a trial in the civilised world without a jury is going to be fair.
Can you remember the trial Patrick? and did it seem odd to the Dutch that it took place in Scotland (legaly) but on Dutch soil, also how did the Dutch view a juryless trial taking part at Camp Zeist on behalf on the British?
I know that the Netherlands holds trials for crimes against humanity at The Hague but this Scotish trial seemed odd. Did the Dutch or the US members here feel that the trial was fair or if it seemed contrived in anyway?

I see no point keeping him locked up. If it's true he has only 3 months to live then what difference does it make. Especialy considering the uncertainty surrounding his guilt.

As you say Paul "one merciful act may beget another" Truthfully i can't see that happening but likewise i don't see why we should lower ourselves in some act of revenge.

In Britain, the general opinion would seem to be ballanced not many people are outraged about his release, not many are especialy pleased either. From what i've seen in the US people (or i should say the media) are a bit pissed. The Scottish justice secretary certainly chose his words carefully.

Rob

Why keep him locked up? He didn't even commit the crime he was doing time for, he was a thumbed mark.

I only wish his appeal could have been heard that way we might have got to the bottom of it, I wasn't convinced of his guilt, I also can see that for the British government to let the Scottish government take care of the release (Scotland has a different legal system to the rest of Britain) they can question the Scots rulling partys (Scottish National Party) intregrity and the British Labour party can score some cheap political points and look great to the US government at the same time. And while the Scott's take the flack for leting him go Britain can start trading with the USA more freely in Libya!!! Win win win for Britain and the USA and we can mud sling at the cost of Scotland for doing what we wanted them to do! What I love about Politics is that when you watch them for long enough it all becomes transparent

Trigger wrote:If he was close to death I think that this was an act of kindness,

I am sorry that the condition of his release was that he droppe his appeal against the conviction, I believe it also means the evidence that would have been put forward is now to remain secret and will never be disclosed.
I think that it is a travesty that any new information could remain secret and that if he was inocent that he will die with this conviction on his name.

I don't believe he did and thought that it was unlikely Libiya was able to carryout this technical attack 20+ years ago, I also think it was unfair that the trial was carried out under Scotish law in the Netherlands in front of a judge with no jury sitting.
I just don't think a trial in the civilised world without a jury is going to be fair.
Can you remember the trial Patrick? and did it seem odd to the Dutch that it took place in Scotland (legaly) but on Dutch soil, also how did the Dutch view a juryless trial taking part at Camp Zeist on behalf on the British?
I know that the Netherlands holds trials for crimes against humanity at The Hague but this Scotish trial seemed odd. Did the Dutch or the US members here feel that the trial was fair or if it seemed contrived in anyway?

I haven't followed the trial really well.
But I remember some Dutch investigators who studied this case for many years said they messed with some of the vital evidence. So what's the trial worth then? They think it suited the US better to accuse Lybie instead of Iran. Eventually Kadhafi (the 'mad dog' as Reagan called him) probably came to a deal with the US and so sacrificed this 'terrorist' for his own benefits.
Yes I think it's a bit odd that the trial was here in holland, I think it should have been held in Scotland. But this was maybe part of the 'deal' as well?