Lockerbie Bomber's Release Sets Dangerous Precedent

Terrorists and mass murderers should be executed. No moral compassion. These people kill in cold blood and kill with full knowledge. Why keep them alive and increase state burden.

Europeans are more civilized than the US. Killing some one who killed 270 people would be uncivilized.

Pathfinder and Humanist:
I do not support the death penalty.
Not for any moral reasons - I think that there are crimes that are so heinous that morally the death penalty is justified with the proviso that the evidence is utterly convincing beyond not merely "any reasonable" but "any possible" doubt.
This puts a big responsibilty of lawyers of course - is requires them (both prosecution and defence) to genuinely serve the cause of Justice, rather than the cause of Law (which are not necessarily synonymous).
My objection to the death penalty is that oppressive regimes often use it to silence dissent and opposition - and it is much harder for a state that executes its own criminals to then claim the moral high ground on the issue.
So, Humanist, I do not think the death penalty is necessarily "uncivilised", merely un-advantageous, which is why I oppose it, Pathfinder.

Lockerbie:
Let me state I am a Brit, not a Scot - so I may have a different take on this.
I also think this was a very wrong move.
A very cynical part of me wonders if this was an attempt my the Scots Nationalists to Embarrass the British Government. If so, it seems to have backfired fairly spectacularly, given the massive criticism levelled at the Minister in the Scottish parliament. His 'defence' (and I use the term lightly) was mere repetition of his initial press release.
It is also important to realise that it was a Scottish, not a British decision. Scotland has its own legal system and under the devolved powers of the Scottish parliament it is sovereign in this area.

I think that he had three possible options:
1. Keep Maghrahi in prison, but facilitate visits from the family.
2. Return him to Libyan custody, so he was still a prisoner on his return.
3. Compassionate release.

the latter was chosen, which was the worst of the possible options, imho.

So, I agree ( and I think it will be shown by events that a majority in both Scotland and England agree with me ) that Maghrahi should have remained in prison until his death.
If it was decided to show compassion, visits from his family could have been facilitated.

There may be some advantage in showing ourselves more compassionate and humane than the likes of Maghrahi, but releasing him to a hero's welcome was not it.
Perhaps the only good to come ofut of this debacle is that it has shown Libya in its true light - it still supports, even lionises, terrorists.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=1059292...

Interesting article - read for details about the Lockerbie bomber.

We in Britain have suspected for years that Megrahi was stitched up. It is only the Americans who are howling about his release, because their security services have the most to hide.

3) If al-Megrahi is not placed under immediate house arrest, the U.S. should reconsider its newfound warm relations with Libya.

I say:

Gadhafi want to set up his tent at some property owned by Libya in New Jersey where 33 of the victims came from. The people in New Jersey are not to happy about this.

Jonc,

"I do not support the death penalty.
Not for any moral reasons – I think that there are crimes that are so heinous that morally the death penalty is justified with the proviso that the evidence is utterly convincing beyond not merely “any reasonable” but “any possible” doubt."

I disagree with you. As a humanist you are supposed to support humanity including it's safety. When you encounter a beast like terrorist you still want to protect their human rights? No, they are not human but zombies Such attitude would be the downfall of civilized people. Don't show your weakness to your enemy.

Mooo, you wrote: "When you encounter a beast like terrorist you still want to protect their human rights?"

The short answer to that is NO.
The longer answer is that I certainly would not "protect their rights" to the detriment of the rest of society. Indeed, about the only "right" I'd leave them with the is "right to life". I also think that those who wilfully discount the rights of others ought as a consequence to be deemed to have lesser rights.
My preference (for those who would otherwise merit execution) would be life imprisonment (meaning whole-life, no parole) with hard labour under a harsh (by modern standards) regime.

Equally, I wouldn't want them actually tortured (though I must admit I define "torture" as something a little worse than "mildly discomfitting" - which seems to be its latest PC definition).
Practically, I think deportation to Country-of-origin is an excellent idea (why the hell should we pay for them, after all) and if they are going to get worse treatment there - well perhaps that is also part of the cost of "biting the hand that feeds you".

BTW: terrorists are not "beasts" (or "zombies" come to that) - they are something much, much worse.