Watching the news today. How can they think about releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al megrahi. He showed no compassion to the victims of the Lockerbie bombing so why should we show him any. My view is he should stay where he is and never be allowed out.

but he didnt do it

but that is a different issue, he has been found guilty and is trying to appeal but at the moment he is guilty.

I tend to agree that he shouldn't be released until an appeal is heard, but there are a number of things about this that I find difficult especially the fact that he may have been a scapegoat.

its not a separate issue, its the same issue.

surely if he was fitted up, then he shouldnt be in prison in the first place?
so the crime is the sentence. 
therefore, the procedure for him leaving prison now isn't relevant?

its not new info he was fitted up, that was pretty much stated at the time of his original trial.
but like you say, he was scapegoated, so authorities ignored this on purpose, just as they threw out his previous appeal and they will throw this one out as well.

one of the key reasons they would do so as the evidence points to CIA collusion in Lockerbie.

Sorry it is a different issue.  He has been found guilty so by law he is guilty and must serve his sentance as required by the law.  He can appeal his conviction and be released if found innocent. 

At the moment he is guilty and releasing him on compassionate grounds is a completely different issue.  In law releasing him on compassionate grounds means he is still guilty but there is no purpose served by keeping him in prison any longer. 

When I said "he may have been scapegoated" I didn't mean he was innocent, there is evidence that he was involved but it appears that he has taken all the blame while the people who were the "brains" behind the bombing have never faced trial and almost certainly will never face trial.

your point would be true if you discounted 2 crucial issues:

1. the trail and sentence are the actual crime
2. he will fail an appeal whether or not he is innocent (this has already happened)

thus, it doesnt matter how and why he is released, as he shouldnt be in prison for a crime he didnt commit in the first place

Sorry I don't understand what you mean in point 1.  He was tried under Scottish law and found guilty therefore in the eyes of the law he is guilty there is no issue here - he has been found guilty so in law he is guilty.  You may feel that this is wrong but it doesn't change the fact that at the moment and until an appeal succeeds he is in law guilty.

Releasing a guilty person on compassionate grounds is a very different thing to releasing a person because they have been proved innocent.

i think you are missing my whole point.

the OP asked if it was bad to release this man on compassionate grounds, due to what he did.

i would say yes, if he did the crime.

but he was stitched up, so i would say it makes not one jot of difference the process, procedure, reason, etc,why he is released, as he trail, sentence and incarceration a travesties of justice and deliberate crimes of the state.

and for that reason, they have failed an appeal before and they will fail one again, so you cant rely on that to free him.

you can be found 'guilty' and be innocent at the same time

the real perpetrators of lockerbie were the PFLP-GC under Abu Nidal (shot dead in Bagdad last year) under the orders of Iran, with CIA prior awareness.
the evidence heavily pointed that way at the time, yet ignore don purpose during the trial.
this isnt new information - i looked into this way back then....its just the mainstream media are now also focusing on it.

Yes you can be found guilty and be innocent although strictly speaking you are at this point guilty.

I personally am not sure how innocent he is.  He was the only one to be found guilty and I personally believe there is no way he is the only one involved, and I suspect that he has been scapegoated to ensure that others who were involved are protected.  That however does not mean he is innocent.

My understanding is that many of the relatives feel this way, one called him a "tool" ie he was used by others.  They think he was involved but they don't think he was the main player

The situation is that many of the british (not american) relatives, led by Dr Jim Swire, beleive Maghrabi and the Libyans didnt do it.
The Libyans were aware of the planning.
But it was the work of the Iranian Gov and PFLP-GS/Abu Nidal.
This was actually what they investigation into the bombing at the time was also examining until all of a sudden it changed to Libya.
Because the bomb was inside a suitcase being used to smuggle drugs care of the CIA.
The CIA found out about the switch, but turned a blind eye due to their own activities.

Hold on a second in America 'inocent' folk are executed regularly because they've been found guilty in a court of law by a group of their peers. 

Regardless of our feelings re his inocence or guilt the man has been given a sentence and should serve it, Myra Hindly served hers to the death unlike Ronnie Bigs ie one law for women another for men.  He may well be a scapegoat or a tool to protect others too bad that's not our problem. Scottish law does not allow capital punishment so he's going to live out his natural life according to mother nature  unlike the victims of Lockerbie who were murdered they weren't shown any compasion by their killers so why should we show compasion to any individual involved as a perpetrator be it directly or indirectly?

I'm not saying that Maghrabi was anything more than a tool (if that) but there is some evidence that he was involved.  However he has been found guilty and so going back to the OPs point should a man who has been found guilty be released on compassionate grounds in this case I'm not sure.

At the end of the day this man has been found guilty and so as I have said is in the eyes of the law guilty.  My understanding is that many of the British relatives don't know if he is guilty or innocent but do feel that the real guilty people have been allowed to get away with it.

I see that he has abandoned his latest appeal, which means he can now be released on compassionate grounds.

>Myra Hindly served hers to the death unlike Ronnie Bigs ie one law for women another for men

Not sure how you come to that conclusion - Biggs was a thug but didn't actually kill anyone - he was involved in a gang that beat someone up so badly that many think it contributed to his death, Hindley on the other hand was actively involved in the torture and murder of a number of children.  Hindley's partner Ian Brady will never be released even on compassionate grounds.

Ian Brady has never wanted to be released...he has campaigned since 2007 to be allowed to starve himself to death but to do this will have to be allowed to move back to the prison system but as he remains in the mental heath system at Ashworth he cannot fulfill his wish.

No but my point is that Ian Brady would never be released on compassionate grounds even if he wanted to

you are absolutly correct.

> but he didnt do it

How do you know that he didn't do it?

I see that he has abandoned his latest appeal, which means he can now be released on compassionate grounds.

yes, interesting point that

newsnight predicated this a week ago, before the main news carried the story in the last few days.
they examined the imminent options being consider by the Scottish authority minister, one of which was release on compassionate grounds, but this would be dependent on the Libyan dropping his appeal.

if he didnt drop his appeal he wouldnt get released before likely his illness claims his life and he doesnt see his home and family.

but by dropping his appeal, the evidence casting doubt on the investigation doesnt get aired properly, thus avoiding embarrassments for certain governmental authorities and politicians.
this has been noted by the British relatives, whom wish to get to the truth.

How do you know that he didn't do it?

all the documented evidence (see my other posts)

documented by the actual investigation after the bombing, but suddenly ditched.

also documented by the British relative Dr Jim Swire, and various investigative journalists throughout the years.

its quite easy to find online.

it was in the public domain at the time of the bombing, even before the internet existed.

Thanks for that, I'll have a look! :)

Nothing I've seen proves he is innocent, a lot of it suggests that he was a minor player in this and that the real players have never been bought to justice.

Everything i have seen way back all those years ago and today doesnt involve him at all, and not even much involvement, par a possible knowledge, of the Libyans at all.

However, everything does implicate the Iranians, PFLP-GC, Abu Nidal, and Hezzbollah.
Possibly even the CIA, DIA, and Mossad.

Like I said he appears to have been scapegoat with only a minor role (possibly no role but I'm not convinced about that).  There is a lot to suggest that the Iranians, PFLP-GC were involved, the Iranians especially had motive to bankroll it as the American's had shot down an Iranian airliner not long before. 

I personally as I have said am not convinced he is entirely innocent but I do agree with you that the people who were really behind it have never been identified and unfortuneatly probably never will.