Kerry vs. a Scottish official on whether terminally ill Lockerbie bomber should be released.

[beachmom]

I am going to ask you guys, if you have the time, to first watch this video (it's under 5 minutes) of the Scottish official explaining why it was decided that convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi, who is now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released to his home in Libya to die.

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3240516

And here is Senator Kerry's statement:

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=317168

Kerry Condemns Release of Lockerbie Bomber

Washington, DC—Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), released the following statement today in response to the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi:

“The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was horrific and unforgivable. 270 people, including 189 American citizens, lost their lives in what was, before September 11, 2001, the deadliest terrorist attack ever committed against the United States. Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison for this terrorist attack and he should serve out his full sentence behind bars in a Scottish prison. I, along with six fellow Senators, pressed the Scottish Executive not to grant Megrahi early compassionate release. Megrahi showed no compassion to the innocent passengers and Scottish villagers who died that day; he should not receive our compassion now. Justice is ill-served by his early release.”

“My thoughts are with the families who continue to suffer as a result of this tragedy.”

I cannot tell a lie: the Scottish official is more compelling. Kerry sounds like a typical American (ha, ha -- so much for him being French!). I think both sides have good reasons for their position. I just think the Scottish official made his case better (although to be fair, a better comparison is if Kerry had made a video; still I don't see anything wrong with comparing the two opinions side by side). I do not have an opinion on this one. Sometimes I like to refrain from being a pundit, and just watch events go by.

[Blaukraut]

1. Thanks, beachmom

I'm with you on this. McAskill's argument/statement was more compelling. While I understand Senator Kerry's statement, I can also see how it reflects the differing mentality and approach to crime and punishment that exists in the US versus Europe. Here we still have the death penalty in some states, a life sentence really does mean life, and there is a good dose of revenge (imo) involved. This isn't to say that Americans are more vengeful per se, but it does reflect a more black and white kind of thinking when it comes to the justice system and sentencing of criminals.

On edit:

I believe our elected officials have little choice in their condemnation/expression of disappointment of Scotland's decision. Can you imagine the public outcry if even one of them had expressed agreement with Scotland?

[karynnj]

2. While the Scottish official is compelling and what he says is

completely consistent with both Christianity and Judaism and likely other faiths, I don't like that he returned to a hero's welcome in Libya. Not only did that cause great pain for the families, it sends some bad messages that I don't think we want sent.

I think they could have found a middle ground showing some compassion without retuning him home. The welcome was predictable given that Qaddafi supposedly sent the plane. I assume that even in prison, the man has received medical treatment and was not being mistreated. I could even see them allowing his family to be with him at this time via prison visits - which would have been a compassionate thing to do.

As to Senator Kerry, he has often spoken of having been a tough prosecutor. Here, he might be weighing the additional pain this will cause the families that lost loved one versus the comfort of the terrorist and his family spending the last 3 months or so of his life together or he likely did anticipate the welcome this man received. Though it is jarring saying no to compassion, here, it might have been the right thing to do. Criminals found guilty of far less die in jail every day.

In addition, the Guardian suggests that the reason given by the Scottish Minister was not the true reason - it was OIL. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/aug/21/megrahi-snp-scotland-michael-white (I was surprised that this the PM of the UK had no say on this and after it was decided he at least tried to get Qaddafi to not allow this kind of welcome)

[beachmom]

3. All good points, but upon reflection, I really do not care for this part of Kerry's statement:

Megrahi showed no compassion to the innocent passengers and Scottish villagers who died that day; he should not receive our compassion now.

That really is very, very bad logic. Let me re-state it with other examples:

Megrahi did not abide by the Geneva Conventions; therefore, we should not abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Libya does not grant American prisoners a right to a trial; therefore, we should not grant them a right to a trial.

I could go on and on. Since when do we base our behavior on the likes of a terrorist?

I think the statement was put together in haste; it is not well thought out. Your reasoning, Karen, is far more compelling.

[karynnj]

6. I didn't like that wording either

but I think your examples are not parallel. Abiding by the Geneva Conventions and giving trials are things that should happen 100% of the time and are not discretionary.

Giving mercy or compassion would be more like:
Megrahi did not share his chocolate with others in the room, so I will not offer him any of mine. Now, offering compassion or chocolate is commendable, but not required.

As to giving compassion or forgiveness, the problem to me may be that the person giving it is not the person who was hurt. Though the bombing was in 1998, I can still remember how devastated many of the parents were. I seriously can't imagine I could find it in myself to ever forgive them had it been one of my children. The closest reason for being able to do that was for reasons Sister Helen Prejean spoke of when speaking against the death penalty.

My daughter heard her speak at college and mentioned to us that one future talk was in NJ. Prejean was the real life nun, who was part of the story in Dead Man Walking. She spoke of how one thing that motivated her to fight the death penalty was that one parent of a murdered teen spoke to a jury against the death penalty explaining that he came to that position after months of hating the murderer and he didn't like the way it made him feel to feel that much hatred. I am in awe of both Prejean and the man she spoke of, but this goes beyond forgiveness or compassion. This allows the murderer to return home in triumph.

[fedupinBushcountry]

4. JK is right in his statement

I know a lot about this through my brother who won 2 Emmies on his reporting of this. He was there for the trial and told me how this man had no remorse whatsoever. Here is his latest take from Syracuse on this. http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/480271/lockerbie-bomber-released-from-prison/?RegionCookie=1013">link

[sandnsea]

5. Meh, it's all as expected

Nice gesture for the Middle East actually, expected outrage from the US. Maybe it can be used as a building block down the road somewhere. They just let squeaky fromme out of prison too, so maybe it's a time for compassionate prison releases. I think prison should be a place to keep people who are harmful. I'm not much interested in retribution, so maybe that's why I just don't care about this stuff.

[wisteria]

7. Well...

Before I saw the video and the interview on CNN with the Scottish official (which I watched yesterday) I was thinking in terms of American justice-this man-this murderer and terrorist Megrahi- should die in prison. However, I have to say that there must be room for justice tempered with compassion. We are no better than this murderer if we fail to consider compassion in any judgment or condemnation. What purpose does it really serve to deny Megrahi's family what amounts to a month or two with him before he dies? They are not responsible for his horrendous acts of murder. While I can understand the families of the victims calling for an eye for an eye and wishing for him to suffer in prison, I think it should be noted that Megrahi is dying a slow death with cancer ravaging his body and this slow death has to be even more difficult for him knowing he is seeing his family for the last time. No, he did not show compassion for his victims or their families, but who are we to say this man does not deserve mercy? That should be left to a higher authority.
As for Senator Kerry's statement, it was, IMO, the politically safe position to take. It also would not be advantageous for him or even our president to appear to show a terrorist any mercy.

[TayTay]

8. I don't think it's an either/or thing here

I think both arguments have validity.

Sen. Kerry is expressing his views as a high-ranking member of the US Congress. His job is to look after the interests of US citizens and advocate for justice. It is justice to ask that convicted murderers serve out their sentences. Those sentences were handed out after full and complete due process of law. It is not unjust or unwise to ask that a prison sentence for mass murder be carried out in full. Surely the relatives of 270 murdered people deserve this kind of "truth in sentencing." Their murdered relatives were not granted any compassionate leave or mercy by the bombers of the Pan AM flight. They were ruthlessly killed by someone who has never shown any remorse. This is justice, albeit justice with a harsh face. Murder is an intolerable act and it must be punished. The murder of so many innocent people is an unspeakable act that has sentenced hundreds of family members of the dead to a life sentence of pain and suffering. It is reasonable that the law seek punishment and revenge on the murderers. They should have died in prison in Scotland, not been freed to a heroe's welcome in Libya. That is not justice.

It is not unjust to ask for mercy for a prisoner who is terminally ill. The Scottish official is not wrong to ask mercy for this prisoner. As Shakespeare wrote in "The Merchant of Venice":

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.

Both views are valid. Justice without mercy is a cold thing, but a lawful thing and something that an advocate acting true to his calling could call for with a clear conscience. Mercy is an appeal to something outside of that legal system and we have nothing but the coldness of the law without it. I think both views are valid and well argued.

[beachmom]

9. Agreed, which is why I didn't take a position. My only point was that

I didn't like the wording of Kerry's statement. I felt the Scottish official made his case better. Frankly, this is a case where I just don't wish to weigh in, because I am conflicted on it (and this is about US, not the terrorist). But what Karen said upthread was a better argument against him dying in Libya (over prison) than Kerry's dry statement.