This is in response to Hellstromm's post above. Forgive me as I haven't learnt how to multi-quote yet! :sad:
His points are in itallics.
Rather obvious you're not familiar with the correctional system. Because, if you were, you wouldn't be making such inane comments. Rehabilitation is an afterthought in most countries, including the U.S. Do you truly believe putting a person in prison with a bunch of other prisoners, so they can swap ideas/approaches, reaffirm anti-social behaviors, and generally behave in gang-related fashion, is rehabilitation? Prisons serve as a punishment and, through fear of incarceration/reincarceration, deterrents. That's not rehabilitation and you would be hard-pressed to convince most sane folks otherwise.
Also, posing an extreme alternative does not make for a good argument. It merely demonstrates the weakness of your foundation.
Firstly, let me say that I do try to make my points without resorting to personal attacks. If I ever do it, please pull me up on it.
Thankfully I am not familiar with the penal system having never served time, but I am aware that deterrence is the least likely outcome of a custodial sentance. Most criminals are re-offenders, and first-timers have obviously not been deterred in the first place! Also, you seem to believe that rehabilitation is not possible and prison is merely a punishment. Although it is true that they are excellent crime academies, your sweeping statement gives no hope that any inmate can reform which is patently not true. This is scary perspective you have on life. I could talk about the death penalty as a deterrent but that's a whole new can of worms.
Yes. Do you think being terminally ill somehow exonerates someone from the crimes they committed, or REHABILITATES them, de-facto? The man has less reason to live now then he did before. Assuming the charges made against him, and for which he was found guilty, are true (and that's a reasonable assumption even in your Bizarro-world), then he's no less likely to commit a heinous crime now than he was then.
"Yes.The man has less reason to live now than he did before ". Seriously, you are just trying to wind me up here with a ridiculous argument devoid any base of reality aren't you? I will ignore that statement for what it's worth, which is little. I doubt he will be doing much plotting from the Intensive care bed that he currently resides in.
But, and maybe this sort of escaped you in this whole weak-stance bit you're pulling here, a greater concern is the symbolism. Or maybe it completely slipped by you that he was treated like a "hero," paraded through the streets in a limo?
Symbolism is the only argument of yours that holds water. I can't really argue against that. You just have to decide how important they are.
The homecoming was regrettable but probably necessary for the Libyans to save face when we screw them during negotiations for their oil. :dry:
Which is a totally irrelevant comment. We're not talking about recovery here --- we're talking about justice, potentiality for recidivism, and symbolic malfeasance.
I think you may be repeating yourself here as any good rant would but like I said, he won't be doing too much plotting from his death bed. I really think you can sleep safely tonight.
Ditto. Put some time into thinking before you pose your arguments, because they are shallow, devoid of continuity, and generally missing the boat.
They are none of these things and I think you mean "missing the point" not "missing the boat". I wasn't aware that I was too late for this discussion.
Actually, the jury was not out. He was found guilty. You keep thinking that, just because he had yet another appeal pending, this somehow exonerates him, infers innocence.
You know that this is a phrase commonly used to express doubt about something right? If not in the US, then certainly over here.
e.g. "What do you make of X's new girlfriend". "Hmmm The jury's out on that one".
Also, did you miss me say "no pun intended"
As I previously posted, just about every person in prison files appeals, over and over and over again. That doesn't make them innocent, it makes them looking for a way out, hoping for some sort of wild hair of luck to release them from a life of imprisonment (in the rare cases where an appeal gets granted, it is due to technicalities and not necessarily guilt or innocence. His first appeal was denied for lack of evidence and he retracted his second appeal, so I guess we'll never really know if he might have gotten off on a technicality).
I really don't know if he was one of the plotters or not but many of the British victims' families do not think he was. There has been talk of retaliation for the USS Vincennes incident and many think that Iran were the bombers. I doubt we will ever know.
And here is where you really start losing your footing. You think to exonerate this guy because of the wrongs committed by United States?!? You honestly believe him killing 200+ people, by blowing up a commercial airliner, is justified?
Did I say that killing 200+ people, by blowing up a commercial airliner, is justified? Please show me where I said that. Also, where did I exonerate him? Again, please show me.
I was merely pointing out that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones when it comes to taking the moral high-ground. Do YOU believe that Americans should boycott Scottish products as a protest? And what do the Lockerbie victims do if they disagree with the decision? Drive to England every time they want to go shopping?
And here is where you're confusing profiteering with "greater good." Wow, seriously, wow! Exactly how deep do you want to go down the rabbit-hole of distorted perceptions?
Well we have to believe that our Governments are acting for the "Greater Good" (to not do so is another debate completely and one I am happy to talk about with you). If a deal was done, it was done in the National Interest. If you disagree with that and believe it to be profiteering and probably corruption of officials, then the similarities with Halliburton and Iraq are obvious. Like I say, it's RealPolitik. Unfortunately ethical foreign policies are like moneytrees. We'd all like to have one but it doesn't actually exist!
