Jump to content


No More Johnny Walker Black For Me


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

#21 slink

slink

    Wow

  • Members
  • 1,348 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Behind the curtain
  • Interests:Manslaughter, justifiable homicide, knife sharpening...
  • Favorite Poker Game:discharging my weapon

Posted 24 August 2009 - 02:23 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

In Scotland, they have something called a "compassionate release" where, when a prisoner is certain to die, they will release him back to his family so he can die with them. This is what happened here.
Oh, then they should have given him "Life, but not really life because when you get close to life we'll let you out", compassionately of course.Truth in sentencing?
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

not everyone is as into you as you are

icon_wall.gif

#22 sKIjaKuDa

sKIjaKuDa

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold 'em, PLO

Posted 24 August 2009 - 02:36 PM

View Postslink, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 6:23 PM, said:

Oh, then they should have given him "Life, but not really life because when you get close to life we'll let you out", compassionately of course.Truth in sentencing?
It's like a Life Sentence in Canada.25 years MAX but more likely between 10-15.
skijakuda on PS, FTP, UB

#23 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 24 August 2009 - 02:37 PM

They have granted it 23 out of 30 times. Obviously, it is their policy to normally do this. The fact that it happens rarely is meaningless. Obviously, there are not enough Scottish prisoners where this situation comes up a lot. The Justice Minister who decided to release him obviously felt Scotland would look anti-Muslim if he refused to grant a legitimate request for this type of release (the 7 denials were always due to the medical reasons.....they do not decide this based on heinousness of the crime committed).I don't agree with the policy in general but I do agree with applying the policy equally. The fact that applying this policy equally has led to such a disastrous result should make Scotland think about adopting a different policy.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#24 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 24 August 2009 - 02:39 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 6:37 PM, said:

They have granted it 23 out of 30 times. Obviously, it is their policy to normally do this. The fact that it happens rarely is meaningless. Obviously, there are not enough Scottish prisoners where this situation comes up a lot. The Justice Minister who decided to release him obviously felt Scotland would look anti-Muslim if he refused to grant a legitimate request for this type of release (the 7 denials were always due to the medical reasons.....they do not decide this based on heinousness of the crime committed).I don't agree with the policy in general but I do agree with applying the policy equally. The fact that applying this policy equally has led to such a disastrous result should make Scotland think about adopting a different policy.
correct

#25 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 24 August 2009 - 03:21 PM

Is there any chance that this was done as a covert attempt to get him to implicate his co-conspirators? Like, the Scottish CIA or whatever has an inside man in Libya? Regardless of how standard his release is or how quickly he will die anyways, this is pretty obviously a case where compassionate release is a huge mistake. Which makes me think that perhaps they have ulterior motives in releasing him. I probably watch too many movies though.Also though, the authorities could see his impending death as the end of their chances to find his co-conspirators, so they're using compassionate release as a method to do so.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#26 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 24 August 2009 - 03:27 PM

Don't forget, this IS Scotland..it cost money to bury people...
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#27 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:06 PM

View PostQED, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 6:05 PM, said:

I don't agree with the release really but it was the Scottish Justice Secretary who made the decision not a judge. I also believe he claims to have talked to families of the victims before hand.
Not exactly.MacAskill apparently had two things to consider. A Prisoner Transfer Agreement request from Libya, and a request for Compassionate Release. During the decision regarding the PTA, he did get input from Families and the US Government - and as a result rejected the PTA Request.But then when reviewing the Compassionate Release request he determined that a Minister of Justice alone had the power to release a prisoner on the basis of compassionate grounds. And even though there are no established criteria for making the decision regarding Compassionate Release - the Minister just needs to be satisfied that there are grounds for compassionate release - he somehow determined that this case met the non-existent criteria for immediate release. He also determined that the Security would be too expensive to allow him to be released to reside elsewhere in Scotland upon release, so he decided that the murderer should return to Libya.So - ultimately he declined a transfer of the scumbag as a prisoner to Libya in deference to the wishes of the families of victims and the US Government, but then unilaterally decided to grant him a full compassionate release and the ability to return home as a hero.How nice.MacAskill concedes that this guy showed neither comfort nor compassion to his scores and scores of victims and their families. But that alone doesn't mean that he and his family do not deserve compassion from Scotland. He claims that his decision is reflective of who the Scottish people are. He says that Judgment must be imposed, but compassion be available. He doesn't even claim that he HAD to release the guy. He stands fast that it was HIS decision to release the prisoner and return to his family in Libya to die. His decision is pure arrogance. Think I am making this up or misrepresenting his point of view?Listen to his own statement here:http://thelede.blogs...2...rss&emc=rssEdinburgh is one of my favorite cities anywhere. I really do like a little JWB. And I do joke a little about my views. However I will not knowingly spend any of my disposable income on any product from Scotland until someone high up in their Justice system publicly and loudly denounces this decision.

#28 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:10 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 7:21 PM, said:

Is there any chance that this was done as a covert attempt to get him to implicate his co-conspirators? Like, the Scottish CIA or whatever has an inside man in Libya? Regardless of how standard his release is or how quickly he will die anyways, this is pretty obviously a case where compassionate release is a huge mistake. Which makes me think that perhaps they have ulterior motives in releasing him. I probably watch too many movies though.Also though, the authorities could see his impending death as the end of their chances to find his co-conspirators, so they're using compassionate release as a method to do so.
C'mon dude.

#29 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:18 PM

View PostPot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 8:10 PM, said:

C'mon dude.
Is it that unreasonable?? Don't you think he's probably their best lead? I mean, I think they've probably hit quite a dead end with the investigation, considering that it happened 20 years ago and they still haven't caught anybody else.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#30 Sam Donaldson

Sam Donaldson

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:26 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 8:18 PM, said:

Is it that unreasonable??
Yes.

#31 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:26 PM

View PostPot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 5:06 PM, said:

Not exactly.MacAskill apparently had two things to consider. A Prisoner Transfer Agreement request from Libya, and a request for Compassionate Release. During the decision regarding the PTA, he did get input from Families and the US Government - and as a result rejected the PTA Request.But then when reviewing the Compassionate Release request he determined that a Minister of Justice alone had the power to release a prisoner on the basis of compassionate grounds. And even though there are no established criteria for making the decision regarding Compassionate Release - the Minister just needs to be satisfied that there are grounds for compassionate release - he somehow determined that this case met the non-existent criteria for immediate release. He also determined that the Security would be too expensive to allow him to be released to reside elsewhere in Scotland upon release, so he decided that the murderer should return to Libya.So - ultimately he declined a transfer of the scumbag as a prisoner to Libya in deference to the wishes of the families of victims and the US Government, but then unilaterally decided to grant him a full compassionate release and the ability to return home as a hero.How nice.MacAskill concedes that this guy showed neither comfort nor compassion to his scores and scores of victims and their families. But that alone doesn't mean that he and his family do not deserve compassion from Scotland. He claims that his decision is reflective of who the Scottish people are. He says that Judgment must be imposed, but compassion be available. He doesn't even claim that he HAD to release the guy. He stands fast that it was HIS decision to release the prisoner and return to his family in Libya to die. His decision is pure arrogance. Think I am making this up or misrepresenting his point of view?Listen to his own statement here:http://thelede.blogs...2...rss&emc=rssEdinburgh is one of my favorite cities anywhere. I really do like a little JWB. And I do joke a little about my views. However I will not knowingly spend any of my disposable income on any product from Scotland until someone high up in their Justice system publicly and loudly denounces this decision.
if they granted it for everyone else who medically qualified then he should have done it here. a judge or justice minister is supposed to apply the law....isn't that right Conservatives? We don't want to change how we apply the laws based on who the person in question is do we? Because that would be using empathy.....that would be judicial activism. And we know from the Sotomayor hearings that judges are supposed to be robots that apply the law with no regard to who the parties are.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#32 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:43 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 8:26 PM, said:

if they granted it for everyone else who medically qualified then he should have done it here. a judge or justice minister is supposed to apply the law....isn't that right Conservatives? We don't want to change how we apply the laws based on who the person in question is do we? Because that would be using empathy.....that would be judicial activism. And we know from the Sotomayor hearings that judges are supposed to be robots that apply the law with no regard to who the parties are.
First of all, MacAskill states that there are no formally established criteria for determining the grounds for Compassionate Release. And 2 cases a year isn't exactly a huge history of precedence to apply. The Act is vague and relies on the Justice Minister to decide how it will be applied. By your logic anyone who applies should therefore be granted release - or at least 76% of applicants should be. I find it completely impossible to believe that no one dies of Cancer in Scottish Prison....but where do you get the notion that Conservatives and Conservatives alone are interested in following and applying nothing but the 100% letter of the law? Because of Sotomayor?!? -Are you therefore implying that it is the hallmark of a Liberal to be compassionate and impercise in application of the Law?

#33 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:59 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 8:18 PM, said:

Is it that unreasonable?? Don't you think he's probably their best lead? I mean, I think they've probably hit quite a dead end with the investigation, considering that it happened 20 years ago and they still haven't caught anybody else.
So you're one of those who think that conspirators have both the ability to perfectly plan and execute a rather complex conspiracy which requires the 100% involvement of high level Ministers of Justice and politicians and perfectly placed inside spies to track the actions of a dying man to determine his accomplices while never leaving a trail of their planning and no one speaking to the media or on-line, but at the same time they must be be so inept as to be unable to unearth another lead or anticipate or care about the international response from Governments and families of Victims.Sort of like the people who call Bush an idiot, then think he and Cheney planned and executed 911, so they could invade Afghanistan, and ultimately Iraq in the pursuit of Revenge and Oil, all under the guise of WMD. And that this vast conspiracy would have no actual proof nor anyone defecting from the fold. And that "they" would never have thought of dropping a nice little WMD lab in the middle of the desert to be "found" and thus secure the reason for the mission without sacrificing the Conservative legacy and hold on power.

#34 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:16 PM

View PostPot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 4:43 PM, said:

First of all, MacAskill states that there are no formally established criteria for determining the grounds for Compassionate Release. And 2 cases a year isn't exactly a huge history of precedence to apply. The Act is vague and relies on the Justice Minister to decide how it will be applied. By your logic anyone who applies should therefore be granted release - or at least 76% of applicants should be. I find it completely impossible to believe that no one dies of Cancer in Scottish Prison....but where do you get the notion that Conservatives and Conservatives alone are interested in following and applying nothing but the 100% letter of the law? Because of Sotomayor?!? -Are you therefore implying that it is the hallmark of a Liberal to be compassionate and impercise in application of the Law?
no I'm saying that if you follow the law you let the guy go which is what conservatives say the want in a judge or justice minister. it is no more complicated than that.everyone who medically met the criteria in the past was granted a release. the bomber medically met the criteria. therefore, the bomber should be released. this is the end result of a bad policy. and I'm implying that if conservatives truly believe what they said they do during the Sotomayor hearings than they would support the Justice Minister. He applied the law as it had always been applied without considering any outside criteria. This is the exact reason why 100% adherence to the letter of the law is a bad idea.Wakefield, you saw that TV episode about the JFK assassination and went a little crazy. Put down the tinfoil hat.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#35 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:21 PM

View PostPot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 8:59 PM, said:

So you're one of those who think that conspirators have both the ability to perfectly plan and execute a rather complex conspiracy which requires the 100% involvement of high level Ministers of Justice and politicians and perfectly placed inside spies to track the actions of a dying man to determine his accomplices while never leaving a trail of their planning and no one speaking to the media or on-line, but at the same time they must be be so inept as to be unable to unearth another lead or anticipate or care about the international response from Governments and families of Victims.
I have no idea why my suggestion was so distasteful to you, but no, that is not the scenario I imagined. And I only imagined it as a slight possibility, and even said that I probably watch too many movies. But no, it would not need to be a large operation, and you shouldn't use the word 'conspirators' because I am talking about government officials who are tracking down the conspirators who planned the attack. So calling those (hypothetical) government officials conspirators is not only incorrect, but confuses them with the people they are chasing. It would not need to involve 100% of anybody. It could be like 6 people. Like, his request for release came up, maybe they were even gonna release him anyways, but then they also have an agent or even just a CI or multiple CIs in Libya tracking him, just in case he somehow gives something away. I don't see how that is terribly far-fetched, or why it makes me a conspiracy-theorist or anything. This isn't a theory about a conspiracy at all - at best it is a very-thin theory about a covert operation, nothing more.Re: Bush, Cheney, etc, if you were involved in or even just read those 9/11 threads back when, do you not remember that I spent pages arguing against the conspiracy theories and pointing out their flaws?
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#36 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:23 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 9:16 PM, said:

no I'm saying that if you follow the law you let the guy go which is what conservatives say the want in a judge or justice minister. it is no more complicated than that.everyone who medically met the criteria in the past was granted a release. the bomber medically met the criteria. therefore, the bomber should be released. this is the end result of a bad policy. and I'm implying that if conservatives truly believe what they said they do during the Sotomayor hearings than they would support the Justice Minister. He applied the law as it had always been applied without considering any outside criteria. This is the exact reason why 100% adherence to the letter of the law is a bad idea.Wakefield, you saw that TV episode about the JFK assassination and went a little crazy. Put down the tinfoil hat.
You don't seem to want to accept this for some reason - perhaps out of your overpowering desire to debate or take a contrary view - in this case there simply was no letter of the law. There is no established criteria defining the grounds for Compassionate Release. MacAskill admits this. He applied his view of the "Right" thing to do based on his interpretation of morality. You cannot believe that no one of the remaining tens and tens of thousands of prisoners in UK prisons have a terminal disease.

#37 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:35 PM

View PostPot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 5:23 PM, said:

You don't seem to want to accept this for some reason - perhaps out of your overpowering desire to debate or take a contrary view - in this case there simply was no letter of the law. There is no established criteria defining the grounds for Compassionate Release. MacAskill admits this. He applied his view of the "Right" thing to do based on his interpretation of morality. You cannot believe that no one of the remaining tens and tens of thousands of prisoners in UK prisons have a terminal disease.
lol interpretation of morality. you are the one who cannot accept things here. there are no criteria so he followed precedent.....the precedent was EVERYONE who passed the medical criteria has been granted compassionate release. every single applicant. this is also a Scottish law not a UK law. I am assuming the # of prisoners in Scotland who have a terminal disease and know about it in time to apply for this provision is smaller than you believe it to be.it's vague so he followed precedent. keep pretending this is about me wanting to be contrary. I already stated in more than one post that this is a stupid law/policy and this event is the proof. dont get mad at the justice minister for enforcing a crappy policy. you should be mad at the Scottish legislature. all the minister did was the same thing that has been done for every other person in that situation. He did not do anything based on his interpretation of morality. Thats what you obviously want him to do though (decide that this prisoner is such a piece of shit that he should not be granted what everyone else has been to this date) which is what makes your argument so wonderfully ironic.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#38 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:35 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 9:21 PM, said:

I have no idea why my suggestion was so distasteful to you, but no, that is not the scenario I imagined. And I only imagined it as a slight possibility, and even said that I probably watch too many movies. But no, it would not need to be a large operation, and you shouldn't use the word 'conspirators' because I am talking about government officials who are tracking down the conspirators who planned the attack. So calling those (hypothetical) government officials conspirators is not only incorrect, but confuses them with the people they are chasing. It would not need to involve 100% of anybody. It could be like 6 people. Like, his request for release came up, maybe they were even gonna release him anyways, but then they also have an agent or even just a CI or multiple CIs in Libya tracking him, just in case he somehow gives something away. I don't see how that is terribly far-fetched, or why it makes me a conspiracy-theorist or anything. This isn't a theory about a conspiracy at all - at best it is a very-thin theory about a covert operation, nothing more.Re: Bush, Cheney, etc, if you were involved in or even just read those 9/11 threads back when, do you not remember that I spent pages arguing against the conspiracy theories and pointing out their flaws?
Because of your history around here was why I posted the mildly incredulous "C'mon Dude".

#39 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:43 PM

View PostPot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 9:35 PM, said:

Because of your history around here was why I posted the mildly incredulous "C'mon Dude".
Fair enough. Canebrain was probably somewhat right about the JFK conspiracy stuff influencing me, but I think I was also just looking for a positive spin on this story. There probably isn't one though.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#40 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:54 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 9:35 PM, said:

lol interpretation of morality. you are the one who cannot accept things here. there are no criteria so he followed precedent.....the precedent was EVERYONE who passed the medical criteria has been granted compassionate release. every single applicant. this is also a Scottish law not a UK law. I am assuming the # of prisoners in Scotland who have a terminal disease and know about it in time to apply for this provision is smaller than you believe it to be.it's vague so he followed precedent. keep pretending this is about me wanting to be contrary. I already stated in more than one post that this is a stupid law/policy and this event is the proof. dont get mad at the justice minister for enforcing a crappy policy. you should be mad at the Scottish legislature. all the minister did was the same thing that has been done for every other person in that situation. He did not do anything based on his interpretation of morality. Thats what you obviously want him to do though (decide that this prisoner is such a piece of shit that he should not be granted what everyone else has been to this date) which is what makes your argument so wonderfully ironic.
So you DO believe that over the past decade FEWER than two dozen people in Scottish Prison have had terminal disease that could have granted them IMMEDIATE release from Prison, but they just forgot to apply for unconditional automatic rubber stamp release?Do you have a link to the criteria by which 25% of past applicants over the past decade were declined? I haven't been able to find anything regarding that.Did you listen to MacAskill's statement which I linked?He admits that there are no established criteria defining the grounds for compassionate release. He doesn't claim that he acted on precedence. He states that he made a decision based on his view of the morality of compassionate release that was "consistent" with Scottish law. That is very different from the claim that precedent somehow forced the decision. Based on his statement it is very clear to me that there was plenty of grey area and room for decision. He wasn't enforcing a crappy policy - he was making a crappy decision.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users