Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

hmm, he's not been in prison as long as I thought, but I'm even less convinced that he's guilty.

I did catch a glimpse of a headline refering to Libya, BP & oil, but never chased it up, so who knows?

Well, it's not up to us, it's up to the court. That's why we have the rule of law, etc.

The whole case is highly politicised by the Libyan connection.

The whole case is politisced full stop.

Frazzled wrote:I think you're getting threads confused. We're talking about a terrorist murdering bastard on this thread. Exit stage left for crazy laws. I'll join you and see if I can find the one where I can stilll get a posse together and hang a horse thief.

No, I'm in the thread talking about the guy with reasonable, substantial questions over his guilt, after being convicted in a highly politicised trial.

Frazzled wrote:He was convicted by a jury correct? Whats the issue?

The appeals process is for the weak, I guess. I thought you'd be all for questioning government and ensuring the rights of the individual?

@Frazzled: Not a jury, a sitting/panel of 3 judges. More open to political bs.

Anyway, the more I hear about this case, the more skeptical I am of the mans guilt.

My question is ... what are they doing about the master mind? if they already said this guy was just a puppet / used as scape goat?

Or are people so consumed by blood lust frenzy to tear this guy apart they completely forgot about the real guilty ones?

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Frazzled: Not a jury, a sitting/panel of 3 judges. More open to political bs.

Anyway, the more I hear about this case, the more skeptical I am of the mans guilt.

Your statement itself is BS. You only need one for a trial.

From: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/index.asp

"The appeal hearing began at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 before a Bench of five judges chaired by the Lord Justice General for Scotland (The Right Honourable Lord Cullen). The other Judges are Lord Kirkwood, Lord Osborne, Lord Macfadyen and Lord Nimmo-Smith."




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there's an interesting opinion piece in today's Herald by Jim Swire.

If ever there was a fellow who'd be a candidate for confusing vengeance with justice you'd think it would be him, but he doesn't believe Megrahi to be guilty.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/focus/display.var.2525826.0.Lockerbie_verdict_a_travesty_for_which_we_will_pay_price.php

It was on Radio 4 this morning that the proposed compassionate release has been dropped due to political considerations (not exactly those words.)

Excellent.

LunaHound wrote:

dietrich wrote:Just because there's doubt as to his guilt, it doesn't mean he's innocent either. From the couple articles that I've read, it's not clear that he was or was not involved in the bombing. While the evidence might be shaky, it also doesn't mean it's not true. Whoever murdered the passengers didn't want to get caught, and was smart enough not to leave a trail of breadcrumbs.

But, if he did it, he deserves to die cold, alone, unloved, and unmourned.

So what you are saying is , it doesnt matter if there is a possibility that he is innocent , and the real guilty one gets away.

Aslong as someone is there to account for the 280 people's death anyone would do?

Whats the story ? is he 100% guilty? or there is something wrong with the trial?

No, what I'm saying is that just because there is doubt about his, it doesn't mean that he is innocent either. The person(s) responsbile for the crime didn't want to get caught, as a result, the evidence against them might not provide a smoking gun. Just because you can't find the smoking gun, it doesn't mean that this person was not involved in the crime. I don't know if he's guilty or not, and I haven't reviewed that much about the case, and I don't plan to, but he was convicted in a Scottish court. Remember, by the time that a person is convicted of a crime, there's a lot of people who are convinced that he (or she) did it - the police, the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury.

So he gets told he will be released on compassionate grounds, he then drops the appeal against his increasingly shoddy looking conviction and then the rug is pulled out from under him at the last minute?

Sounds like a cynical plot to keep the appeal from going ahead to me. I hope it's reinstated asap.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Frazzled: Not a jury, a sitting/panel of 3 judges. More open to political bs.

Anyway, the more I hear about this case, the more skeptical I am of the mans guilt.

Your statement itself is BS. You only need one for a trial.

You claimed he had been found guilty by a jury, I was simply pointing out that you were mistaken. BTW, A judge IS more open to both corruption an pressure.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Frazzled: Not a jury, a sitting/panel of 3 judges. More open to political bs.

Anyway, the more I hear about this case, the more skeptical I am of the mans guilt.

Your statement itself is BS. You only need one for a trial.

You claimed he had been found guilty by a jury, I was simply pointing out that you were mistaken. BTW, A judge IS more open to both corruption an pressure.

Why do you say that? I'm eminently more corruptible than a judge. Try me, I take cash, Visa, and debt cards . Sorry no out of state checks.

Yeah, but a jury is random, and harder to approach than a judge. And then you have to bribe all 12 of them as compared to just one or two.

Frazzled wrote:Why do you say that? I'm eminently more corruptible than a judge. Try me, I take cash, Visa, and debt cards . Sorry no out of state checks.

Emperors Faithful wrote:BTW, not that the USA gives a damn whatever anyone else thinks, but by killing thier criminals they are breaching the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

How so?

It really isn't Universal when some people agreed on it and not others; even some that did don't agree with all of it. Probably should have called it the Broad Presentation of Wishful Thinking. It has about as much force behind it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:BTW, not that the USA gives a damn whatever anyone else thinks, but by killing thier criminals they are breaching the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

How so?

1. no we're not
2. Remember that Bribe thing people. Frazzled need a new pair of everything!

Yeah... no caption needed .



Justice is best served upside-down, in front of a group of your erm.... peers.

This whole topic makes me worry A LOT about Obama's indefinite detention plan... the amount of chaos that could provoke is more than enough to make me a hermit in the mountains. I love you too fuzzy-bunny, and you too scary eagle, and you too OH CRAP IT'S A FREAKING BEAR, SHOOT IT!!!

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:BTW, not that the USA gives a damn whatever anyone else thinks, but by killing thier criminals they are breaching the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

How so?

The fundamental right to life. By killing them, you're taking away thier right to leave and breathe as a human being. (Prepare for shitstorm)

The have no fundamental right to life.

Of course there is the fundamental right...to boogie!

Emperors Faithful wrote:The fundamental right to life. By killing them, you're taking away thier right to leave and breathe as a human being. (Prepare for shitstorm)

The next word after "life" in Article 3 is "liberty".