'We Are Defined as a Nation by How We Treat Those Who Have Chosen to Hurt Us'

"What this man did was unconscionable...do we not rise above this heinous act and show mercy,which he did not?"

Again, you are conflating mercy with exoneration. As such, I do not accept the premise of your question. So I'll ask again, what should we do with prisoners? Do we release them? Why or why not?

".Was he exonerated by being released?"

Even more, but he came home to an ovation.

"You evade my first statement...your argument is rooted in Old testament revenge rather than New Testament forgiveness."

I evaded nothing. Imprisonment is about justice, not revenge. You are offering a false choice.

"As for what to do with prisoners, have I advocated
no imprisonment or renouncing imprisonment?"

No, and I didn't say you did.

"No, instead I state that we as
Christians have a moral responsibility to exercise mercy as a component of
justice."

And I state that this application of mercy as a component of justice is absurd and unjust.

What I am asking you, and you have yet to answer, is how we should approach the issue of imprisonment. How do we apply to justice in a manner that is consistent?

At what point does imprisonment become revenge? You are making bold, nebulous accusations about my position, which does nothing to advance the dialogue.

"You demand payment for that which cannot be repaid."

A debt to society can be repaid.

"God's justice will be served on the day of judgment.."

That it will.

In response to the 4th point of SisterMarie, wouldn't it stand to reason that the parent of a victim would have a greater interest in making sure justice was correctly served than you or I would? I mean, to all of us this was tragic, but to him it was personal! And might that not compel him to dig a little deeper for the truth, than others who might be satisfied to simply allow people to believe that justice had been served? And how do we know other parents dont agree with him? Did you even look at LockerbieTruth.com to see what counterpoints were presented to the so called facts in the case and how they may or may not have been received? We have incorrectly imprisoned many inoccent people in our own country using a system that requires "facts" be presented to convict. It would be unreasonable to assume it can only happen here wouldnt it?

And in response to your 5th point, if indeed a good number of Libyans believe the man is innocent, could it not be that they were celebrating not the release of a mass murderer or "conquering hero", but the long awaited reversal of a miscarriage of justice? After all, perception is reality is it not?

I doubt I would have made the decision to release him on compassionate grounds. It offends me a little -- since lots of people in prison end up with terminal illnesses -- what makes him better than them? Many of us will end up with a terminal disease. Released or not, his life is going to stink -- and I doubt having family around will help him that much.

An equally interesting question is -- if you had a criminal in your family -- and they were granted a "compassionate release" would you rather they stay in prison, or that you have to take care of them? I really don't think either answer is more loving than the other.

So he goes home and his family and friends pat him on the back for what he did. Is that worth hurting again all the people he already hurt with his crime? The only way he can make good on his crime is to repent of it. The only thing his victims are left to do is to make good of it or let it ruin them. For some that will mean forgiving him. For those that choose not to do that -- well, I cannot judge them -- for I don't know if I'm better than they.

As for how the world views the country -- some will see it as compassionate, some will see it as stupid, and some will see it as motivated by something else. Sounds like a lose/lose to me. Everyone involved lost and no body won.

True, we must be careful as to whom we pardon or whose sentences we commute. That being said, the so-called Lockerbie Bomber is suffering with a terminal illness. I believe that it was an act of compassion that caused the judge to release him and allow him to return to his family. I do not think that it was a sign of weakness on our part. This man was no longer a threat to the world. That is my humble opinion on the subject. God wants us to be loving as He is loving, and merciful as He is merciful.

Mr. Ben White,

I respectfully disagree with your post justifying the early release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. Here's why:

1. If we make these decisions purely on compassionate grounds, why would we impose any sentence at all? Or if we wanted a smaller dose of compassion, why not just simply impose a shorter sentence to begin with? No, to put it simply, in this case and others like it, justice trumps compassion. If anyone in that airplane survived the initial blast, it would be hard to imagine the sheer panic that they experienced during the aircraft freefall to the ground. I am personally acquainted with a man (who is now in his 70s) serving a life term for the murder of his wife. He will die in that prison because of what he did and justifiably so. This man deserved no special treatment.
2. There is plenty of evidence now emerging that suggests that this man's release was predicated on an oil deal. That just makes it worse. A lot of people die in prison - that's what makes it a life term.

"There is a powerful simplicity to this, but in fact, it is a dangerous logic we would disavow in many other situations."

But not in those situations in which a man blew up an airplane full of people. Context matters.

"The inversion of sexual exploitation into its own form of control"--that's the kind of thing porn stars like Sasha Grey say to explain their career choice. Might be more aesthetically appealing if they set it to a beat and kept it under five minutes.

Abdelbaset Ali al Megrahi did not merely "hurt" people, he committed mass murder.

While I agree that mercy is not something that depends on past displays of compassion, it is entirely appropriate to condition it on current displays of contrition, something that Megrahi did not exhibit.

At any rate, we are not talking about a private act of vengeance but a crime against the people of the Unitied Kingdom and other nations. This crime was adjudicated in court in accordance with laws intended to protec the public. Whatever clemency might be extended should also be done with an eye towards the purposes of the law -- to deter future acts of murder. The message that this act sends to terrorists and other murderers is that you can expect clemency without contrition if you have powerful political backers. The chances that more people will be killed has gone up.

It would not have been a violation of our principles for Megrahi to die in prison. In fact, it would be an affirmation of one very important principle: thou shalt do no murder.

LV

True, we must be careful as to whom we pardon or whose sentences we commute. That being said, the so-called Lockerbie Bomber is suffering with a terminal illness. I believe that it was an act of compassion that caused the judge to release him and allow him to return to his family. I do not think that it was a sign of weakness on our part. This man was no longer a threat to the world. That is my humble opinion on the subject. God wants us to be loving as He is loving, and merciful as He is merciful.

Context does indeed matter. In this case perhaps more than we know. I would urge you to read what Dr Swire (whose daughter was killed in the explosion) has to say at www.Lockerbietruth.com or just google his name. There is and has been 'reasonable doubt' that Megrahi was involved. Don't take my word for it:
10th September 2009. Former British Ambassador to Libya repeats his doubts
In today's Daily Mail, Sir Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya, repeats his serious doubts concerning the conviction of Al-Megrahi. Sir Oliver explains that when he read the trial judgement he could not fail to conclude that there was "reasonable doubt" about Al-Megrahi's guilt. In British and Scottish law, where there is reasonable doubt in a criminal case, a judge and jury must give an accused the benefit of the doubt. In the case of Al-Megrahi, no such conclusion was reached.

Several independant observers at original trial found evidence to be circumstancial at best.

As regards 'we don't talk to terrorists'......I grew up in Northern Ireland during the 60s and lived in London during the 70s when the Provos were plying their deadly trade and the Loyalists were also creating mayhem. I know what it is like to live in that sortt of enviorment day and daily, 3000 plus people killed over 30 years. And I am here to tell you that progress did not begin towards peace untill someone started to talk to ' the terrorists'. Thatcher declared categorically she would never capitualte, Major repeated the refrain and we find out with documents released recently that those conversations long renounced had been going on all the time. So today Northern Ireland's deputy first minister is a convicted 'terrorist' self confessed member of the IRA. and has served prison time as such.

I believe Maghrai to be innocent. If he is then an injustice has been in part redressed. If he is not, mercy to the unmerciful has been shown and he will be held to account at a date yet to be determined.

Paul Hill was convicted of participating in a pub bombing in England 1974, he did 15 years in prison. Evidence which lead to his conviction with 7 others was brought to the court by one of the same investigators (Dr Thomas Hayes) as was involved at Lockerbie. Hill's conviction was overturned eventually and the court apologised. All 7 were released. Hill DID confess to the crime but did so under torture.

Prisoners die in prison all the time. By your logic, we should release all the terminally ill ones in the name of mercy. Just because something is done in the name of compassion doesn't mean it is good.

1. Not all murderers are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims.

2. Barack Obama hasn't been president for a full year let, so let's just see how well his diplomacy works. This less aggressive approach hasn't always paid off. Jimmy Carter certainly wasn't confrontational, but he was rewarded with a hostage crisis that lasted better than a year.

LV

While No. 1 is certainly true on both accounts, the terrorists we're dealing with today are almost exclusively Muslim, as was the guy who was released. But no one wants aspires to be a terrorist; there's always an underlying cause.

I think Obama's approach is already working, witness a denunciation from al-Qaeda earlier this year made for political reasons -- because if he can get the Arab "street" on his side it means real problems for terrorist groups. Keep in mind that, eight years ago today, Osama bin Laden was trying to provoke a fight he believed he couldn't lose. Terrorism requires an enemy and if there's no enemy, then ...

Context does indeed matter. In this case perhaps more than we know. I would urge you to read what Dr Swire (whose daughter was killed in the explosion) has to say at www.Lockerbietruth.com or just google his name. There is and has been 'reasonable doubt' that Megrahi was involved. Don't take my word for it:
10th September 2009. Former British Ambassador to Libya repeats his doubts
In today's Daily Mail, Sir Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya, repeats his serious doubts concerning the conviction of Al-Megrahi. Sir Oliver explains that when he read the trial judgement he could not fail to conclude that there was "reasonable doubt" about Al-Megrahi's guilt. In British and Scottish law, where there is reasonable doubt in a criminal case, a judge and jury must give an accused the benefit of the doubt. In the case of Al-Megrahi, no such conclusion was reached.

Several independant observers at original trial found evidence to be circumstancial at best.

As regards 'we don't talk to terrorists'......I grew up in Northern Ireland during the 60s and lived in London during the 70s when the Provos were plying their deadly trade and the Loyalists were also creating mayhem. I know what it is like to live in that sortt of enviorment day and daily, 3000 plus people killed over 30 years. And I am here to tell you that progress did not begin towards peace untill someone started to talk to ' the terrorists'. Thatcher declared categorically she would never capitualte, Major repeated the refrain and we find out with documents released recently that those conversations long renounced had been going on all the time. So today Northern Ireland's deputy first minister is a convicted 'terrorist' self confessed member of the IRA. and has served prison time as such.

I believe Maghrai to be innocent. If he is then an injustice has been in part redressed. If he is not, mercy to the unmerciful has been shown and he will be held to account at a date yet to be determined.

Paul Hill was convicted of participating in a pub bombing in England 1974, he did 15 years in prison. Evidence which lead to his conviction with 7 others was brought to the court by one of the same investigators (Dr Thomas Hayes) as was involved at Lockerbie. Hill's conviction was overturned eventually and the court apologised. All 7 were released. Hill DID confess to the crime but did so under torture.

"The inversion of sexual exploitation into its own form of control"--that's the kind of thing porn stars like Sasha Grey say to explain their career choice. Might be more aesthetically appealing if they set it to a beat and kept it under five minutes.

llWe acknowledge that man's law comes with punishment, and that the
punishment be just...and the law also exercises mercy, when justice is
better served by releasing someone than keeping them imprisoned for a few
more days until they die.

What this man did was unconscionable...do we not rise above this heinous act
and show mercy,which he did not? Your arguments are grounded in Old
Testament revenge instead of New Testament forgiveness.

What justice is served by prolonging suffering, ANY suffering, to fulfill
man's thirst for revenge in the guise of justice?

.Was he exonerated by being released? Hardly! You evade my first
statement...your argument is rooted in Old testament revenge rather than New
Testament forgiveness. As for what to do with prisoners, have I advocated
no imprisonment or renouncing imprisonment? No, instead I state that we as
Christians have a moral responsibility to exercise mercy as a component of
justice. Revenge does nothing to heal, and does not pay back society at
all. It only perpetuates the anger, pain and suffering of all impacted by
such crimes, including the convicted mand and his family. You demand
payment for that which cannot be repaid. God's justice will be served on
the day of judgment..your position only tries to justify revenge, for which
there is no justification in God's kingdom.

Let it go and let some healing begin

Because it isn't a "guise of justice" as you assert, but rather simple
justice. He took lives. He was sentenced to an appropriate sentence. He
should serve it. That is justice. Revenge would have been to strap a bomb
to him and blow him up.

And again, I don't think this solution is at all merciful to those who lost
loved ones and deserved to see the enactment of the full measure of
justice. What we got instead was an arbitrary, politically motivated
application of some bizarre definition of mercy.

If the man is innocent, he should be freed on those grounds. If he is not, he should not, on the grounds that he is not innocent of his crimes. A "compassionate release" should not be used to circumvent the rulings of judges.

As to the facts of the case, Marie's comments below are exactly right.