126 replies to this topic

[Pot Odds RAC]

timwakefield, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 9:43 PM, said:

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.

...and I didn't mean to be rude to you. Sorry if I came across that way.

[CaneBrain]

Pot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 6:54 PM, said:

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.

the cnn article I read said that 30 people had applied and 7 had been denied on medical grounds. The other 23 were granted. Where is the grey area? To deny his claim would have been to do the opposite of what they had done every other time. This is why the law should have a provision that prohibits certain offenders from being considered for compassionate release.As to the point about terminal patients in Scottish prison.....I really have no idea why you are pressing this. How do I know how common this situation is? America has a quarter of the world's prison population. Maybe there are just not that many people in Scottish prison? Maybe the medical care in prisons is sub-standard so many terminal conditions are not caught until the autopsy? Maybe life sentences are rarer in Scotland? I really don't know and I don't think it is remotely relevant either. But I gave you some theories since it is important to you clearly.

[Pot Odds RAC]

Mercury69, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 4:20 PM, said:

Just say No to blends. Unless you're mixing...Teacher's is a decent blend, actually. 40% of it is from a single distillery. It makes a fine Rusty Nail.

Yeah. I just really like the Smokey flavors of the Blends - I'm just an uneducated slob in that respect. I think I can replace JWB with Woodford Reserve in my line-up.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 7:13 PM, said:

the cnn article I read said that 30 people had applied and 7 had been denied on medical grounds. The other 23 were granted. Where is the grey area? To deny his claim would have been to do the opposite of what they had done every other time. This is why the law should have a provision that prohibits certain offenders from being considered for compassionate release.As to the point about terminal patients in Scottish prison.....I really have no idea why you are pressing this. How do I know how common this situation is? America has a quarter of the world's prison population. Maybe there are just not that many people in Scottish prison? Maybe the medical care in prisons is sub-standard so many terminal conditions are not caught until the autopsy? Maybe life sentences are rarer in Scotland? I really don't know and I don't think it is remotely relevant either. But I gave you some theories since it is important to you clearly.

I gave the answer in post 26

[All_In]

scotland always releases prisoners for compassionate reasons, they only refuse when it is not medically clear that they are terminally ill. so this is normal."Kenny MacAskill reiterated that the decision to free Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was made in accordance with Scottish law and was not influenced by politics, diplomacy or trade."In Scotland we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. The perpetration of an outrage ... cannot and should not be the basis for losing sight of who we are," he said on Monday."http://english.aljaz...1339595745.htmlamericans were not the only ones to die, many other families agree with this decision.there are also issues with how this guy was convicted. he was put away mainly on hearsay:"Al-Megrahi was charged after he was identified by a Maltese shopkeeper as the man who bought clothes that were found in the suitcase carrying the bomb planted on the aircraft."http://english.aljaz...3226391461.htmlHear is this guy's full statement:http://english.aljaz...6359962688.html

[sKIjaKuDa]

English Al-Jazeerathere are also issues with how this guy was convicted. he was put away mainly on hearsay:I am sure there isn't a biased swing to that. I understand they are an international news company but they are also the ones who air the threats from these jack@sses in the first place so those references probably aren't worth the effort to click them.There is no reason in my mind for this guy to get released to be given a hero's welcome. I don't care how sick he is or was and I hope he just goes back to die and isn't going to strap on a ballistic backpack and earn himself some virgins.

[Pot Odds RAC]

All_In, on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009, 9:30 AM, said:

scotland always releases prisoners for compassionate reasons, they only refuse when it is not medically clear that they are terminally ill. so this is normal."Kenny MacAskill reiterated that the decision to free Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was made in accordance with Scottish law and was not influenced by politics, diplomacy or trade."In Scotland we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. The perpetration of an outrage ... cannot and should not be the basis for losing sight of who we are," he said on Monday."http://english.aljaz...1339595745.htmlamericans were not the only ones to die, many other families agree with this decision.there are also issues with how this guy was convicted. he was put away mainly on hearsay:"Al-Megrahi was charged after he was identified by a Maltese shopkeeper as the man who bought clothes that were found in the suitcase carrying the bomb planted on the aircraft."http://english.aljaz...3226391461.htmlHear is this guy's full statement:http://english.aljaz...6359962688.html

He was convicted by the same laws which released him. I am not saying he was illegally released. I am saying it was a bad decision to do so.

[sKIjaKuDa]

Pot Odds RAC, on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009, 9:43 AM, said:

He was convicted by the same laws which released him. I am not saying he was illegally released. I am saying it was a bad decision to do so.

I agree.

[All_In]

Pot Odds RAC, on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009, 5:43 AM, said:

He was convicted by the same laws which released him. I am not saying he was illegally released. I am saying it was a bad decision to do so.

fair enough (but it wasn't actually the same laws. there are laws in my country that i disagree with, and those that i agree with. it is misleading to group them all together). I think it was a morally correct decision. revenge should not be a factor, especially on someone who is terminally ill. he's as good as dead, letting him out shows compassion.

[timwakefield]

Pot Odds RAC, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 9:55 PM, said:

...and I didn't mean to be rude to you. Sorry if I came across that way.

It's all good. It's often very difficult to pick up on a person's tone over the interweb, and I would estimate that this leads to at least half of all internet fights. Not that we fought, just saying I probably misinterpreted your tone.

[owise1]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, August 24th, 2009, 8:29 AM, said:

The guy's going to die a painful death from pancreatic cancer. Nothing's going to stop that. If he's in jail at the time or elsewhere, it doesn't really matter. His sentence has been given down by god. It is final, and no one can take that back.I find the notion of giving this man unspeakable compassion to be quite touching. His being or not being in jail for a few months isn't going to bring anyone back, isn't going to make terrorists more or less likely to commit their atrocities, it isn't going to make things "right" in any way. It only shows that people are capable of turning the other cheek, of showing not forgiveness, for his actions will never be forgiven, but human decency, even in the face of the greatest evil. I also find it deeply hypocritical for any Christian to question the release of this prisoner. Releasing this man is basically the central tenet of Christ's teachings.

I think that it would make terrorists more likely to commit their atrocities. They may now think that they will get away with these acts. It definately will not be a deterent.Check out this article from the National Post here cliff notes: 1. Maybe it was the wrong man or 2. Maybe a deal was made.

[Balloon guy]

All_In, on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009, 7:15 AM, said:

fair enough (but it wasn't actually the same laws. there are laws in my country that i disagree with, and those that i agree with. it is misleading to group them all together). I think it was a morally correct decision. revenge should not be a factor, especially on someone who is terminally ill. he's as good as dead, letting him out shows compassion.

I hope they show the same compassion to Charles Manson

[LongLiveYorke]

owise1, on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

I think that it would make terrorists more likely to commit their atrocities. They may now think that they will get away with these acts. It definately will not be a deterent.

Terrorists rarely think about consequences when planning attacks. It's not like there are people who are on the edge of being a terrorist and the think, "Well, if I get cancer and I get arrested in Scotland, I may get released, though probably not now after there's so much controversy. Whatever, I'll go with this whole 'terrrorist' thing."They're far too beyond logic and reason at that point to be swayed.

[timwakefield]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, August 27th, 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

I hope they show the same compassion to Charles Manson

How has that guy not caught a shiv yet?

[JoeWalsh]

sKIjaKuDa, on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009, 2:37 PM, said:

English Al-Jazeerathere are also issues with how this guy was convicted. he was put away mainly on hearsay:I am sure there isn't a biased swing to that. I understand they are an international news company but they are also the ones who air the threats from these jack@sses in the first place so those references probably aren't worth the effort to click them.There is no reason in my mind for this guy to get released to be given a hero's welcome. I don't care how sick he is or was and I hope he just goes back to die and isn't going to strap on a ballistic backpack and earn himself some virgins.

Just so you know, Al Jazeera are one of the best news desks out there. They actually cover world issues in a pretty unbiased manner and are essentially the old BBC World middle east office. Some of their stuff will show bias but it is usually from opinion pieces and it will be one of the guests sprouting that nonsense. It is no different from Fox in the US throwing on a right winger to discuss the new health care bill or Sky News bringing on a Tory think tank leader to bash Brown.As for the prisoner release, there is clearly more political motives at work here, and why not. They aren't going to get this guy in prison for a longer time before he dies so they may as well get something from him that can benefit the lives of citizens.

[Pot Odds RAC]

JoeWalsh, on Thursday, August 27th, 2009, 6:30 AM, said:

Just so you know, Al Jazeera are one of the best news desks out there. They actually cover world issues in a pretty unbiased manner and are essentially the old BBC World middle east office. Some of their stuff will show bias but it is usually from opinion pieces and it will be one of the guests sprouting that nonsense. It is no different from Fox in the US throwing on a right winger to discuss the new health care bill or Sky News bringing on a Tory think tank leader to bash Brown.

Dave Marash might disagree

JoeWalsh, on Thursday, August 27th, 2009, 6:30 AM, said:

As for the prisoner release, there is clearly more political motives at work here, and why not. They aren't going to get this guy in prison for a longer time before he dies so they may as well get something from him that can benefit the lives of citizens.

Yeah. Why not just politicize the Justice system so people know for certain Justice isn't "blind"?To hell with Victims and their sense of fairness, it isn't about them anyway.I mean, a sweetheart Oil Deal with Libya is worth more than Justice any day.

[owise1]

JoeWalsh, on Thursday, August 27th, 2009, 2:30 AM, said:

Just so you know, Al Jazeera are one of the best news desks out there. They actually cover world issues in a pretty unbiased manner and are essentially the old BBC World middle east office. Some of their stuff will show bias but it is usually from opinion pieces and it will be one of the guests sprouting that nonsense. It is no different from Fox in the US throwing on a right winger to discuss the new health care bill or Sky News bringing on a Tory think tank leader to bash Brown.As for the prisoner release, there is clearly more political motives at work here, and why not. They aren't going to get this guy in prison for a longer time before he dies so they may as well get something from him that can benefit the lives of citizens.

Highly probable.

Quote

QUOTE (sKIjaKuDa @ Tuesday, August 25th, 2009, 2:37 PM) English Al-Jazeerathere are also issues with how this guy was convicted. he was put away mainly on hearsay:

Since most people don't click the links (from the National Post article here):POSSIBILITY 2: THE WRONG MANFor years, many well-informed people in the intelligence community have doubted al-Megrahi's guilt in the Lockerbie bombing. They have argued that the bombing was the work of a Syrian based Palestinian group, the PFLP-GC, working for the government of Iran.Among those who support the Iran-did-it theory are: (i) former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon; (ii) Robert Baer, the CIA official who worked directly on the Lockerbie case; (iii) Hans Koechler, the UN Security Council observer at al-Megrahi's trial; (iv) Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who organized the trial proceedings; (v) Dr. Jim Swire, the spokesman for the families of British Lockerbie victims who lost his own daughter aboard Pan Am Flight 103; and (vi) David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post.The U. S. and U. K. publicly identified Libya as the guilty party in 1990. Why might Britain and the U. S. prefer to assert Libyan rather than Iranian and Syrian culpability at that time? Could it have been a thank you to Syria for joining the U. S.-U. K. Gulf War coalition against Iraq? Or was it simply less embarrassing this way? Five months before Lockerbie, a U. S. warship, the Vincennes, had mistakenly fired a missile at an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people. If Iran downed Pan Am 103, some might cite the Vincennes incident as justification or excuse.Question: Could it be that Hillary Clinton has come to believe the "wrong man" thesis? Here's what she had to say in a televised interview with the BBC on the eve of al-Megrahi's release:"I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime." (Italics added.)That does not sound like ringing certainty about the man's guilt, does it?Doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt might explain the limpness of the Obama/Clinton statements about his early release. But such doubts would not excuse that limpness. If al-Megrahi is the wrong man, then there has been a miscarriage of justice. In that situation, al-Megrahi would deserve much more than release and a few quietly murmured words of "disappointment": He would deserve pardon, apology and compensation.But if al-Megrahi is the right man, then what has just happened in Scotland is an appalling outrage -- and the Obama administration's mealy-mouthed response to that outrage is a disgrace.©David Frumdfrum@aei.org

[strategy]

http://www.timesonli...icle6814939.ecepossible deal involving BP.

[Pot Odds RAC]

strategy, on Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 5:14 PM, said:

http://www.timesonli...icle6814939.ecepossible deal involving BP.

****ing amazing. I stand by my boycott of Scotch. If the Brits actually produced anything I'd boycott that too.

[strategy]

Pot Odds RAC, on Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 4:17 PM, said:

****ing amazing. I stand by my boycott of Scotch. If the Brits actually produced anything I'd boycott that too.

can't vouch for the source, but if that's true... LOL