Right, the discussion isn't about flamers, so let's be careful about not derailing a rather emotionally charged topic.
Wildmanjim, almost every convicted criminal with a long, or lifetime, sentence, has their case on appeal. It's just the way it works. In order to ensure you can appeal in the future, you have to repeatedly appeal in the present. If you lapse in filing an appeal, you cannot file an appeal ever again. That's the way it is in the U.S., in the U.K., in Canada, and likely in many other countries.
Look, this was the second appeal filed
(the first one was televised on BBC and translated into 7 different languages, demonstrating their sincere efforts to provide transparency). An appeal doesn't make him innocent. In fact, the vast majority of appeals are either denied or lost in the courts, and his first appeal was denied stating insufficient grounds. And, the original hearing underwent an extreme effort to provide a neutral base for the case to be tried. Although it was Scottish law being imposed, the trial was held in a neutral country.
I listened to the
Scottish Justice
Secretary Kenny MacAskill, a talented orator (
click here). His argument
sounds very reasonable as to why he commuted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's sentence, but it is not reasonable. Just because a person may live for only a short period of time does not diminish his threat, nor does it serve justice.
I think it is also important to correct your misinformation. Megrahi, and the other charged defendent, underwent five
pre-trial hearings,
two of which were held in private and which cost, for the creation of the special court and prison complex at Camp Zeist, on or about £12m, not your purported £50m. The actual trial was made quite public, full-transparent.
The second appeal filed ran on the "conspiracy theories" that were encouraged by
Hans Köchler, the U.N. trial observer who is a professor of philosophy, not law. He argued, as any philosopher, that the due process was draconian. Well, boo to him, because that just so happens to be the way the legal system works. It's not built with the intent to hem and haw, but to hit hard and provide evidence, both for and against, to with their respective positions, and thus the case. I listened to, and read Kochler's arguments, and he's frankly wrong. He expects a philosophical debate in a courtroom, and that just doesn't happen.
Also, someone else mentioned he had been brought to face the courts 11 years after the crime. So what? There are people repeatedly being arrested years, even decades, after the commission of a crime. That doesn't demonstrate innocence, it only demonstrates a delay in justice, the real-time complications of obtaining evidence in an internationally-based crime.
Finally, I read some incredibly ridiculous arguments stating that Obama should not have said anything and that this case is none of U.S. business. What a major piece of crap. 180 of the total 270 victims of this incident were U.S. citizens. The plane, Pan-Am, was American-owned. The destination of the flight was New York. U.S. citizens were the intended victims of this crime. Moreso, they were two-thirds of the victims. The U.S., government and otherwise stating their great displeasure at the commuting of this murderer's sentence, is appropriate.
This man was responsible for the murder of 270 non-combatants. Not one, not two, not even 20... but 270. He committed mass murder, and no mass murderer should be given leniency, for the mere fact they have the potential to recommit. In this case, he also stands as a martyr of "righteousness."
One other argument is that the Lockerbie incident happened just months after the U.S. Navy inadvertently shot down an Iranian commercial plane, killing hundreds, and thus it was the Iranians behind the attack, as retribution. But, evidence does not support that conspiracy theory, nor does "revenge" stand as a viable defense even if Megrahi was working in support of the Iranians.
