Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber can live on for a decade.

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
128 replies · 16K views
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
10,165
Reaction score
138
"Terminally ill" Lockerbie bomber can live on for a decade.

Mainly on basis of Dr. Sikora's unambiguous statements last August, the Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi was released from jail, and left for Libya where he, according to Dr. Sikora "might not have more than 4 weeks to live".

NOw, almost a year after, with a still-sprightly mass murderer living at ease in Libya, Dr.Sikora says the situation is somewhat "embarassing":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-doctor-Karol-Sikora-admits-live-decade.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org


He killed 270 people, and the authorities let him loose. Amazing.
 


Those authorities were and are his supporters and accomplices.

They're on my list.
 


Assassinate him. :devil: Why would you let him go because he was terminally ill... :confused:
 


Cyrus said:
Why would you let him go because he was terminally ill... :confused:
Oh the argument ran like:
"Oh, he is going to DIE in prison, but not from old age. That is INHUMANE! He must be allowed to die of prostate cancer among his near and dear..Are you a racist?"
 


arildno said:
...Are you a racist?"

Answer. Yes, now F'off! :devil:

They should have sent him back, and blown up the airplane just before it landed. :devil:
 


To recapitulate the case:
1. It was revealed in September 2009 by Daily Telegraph that the Libyan Government had paid doctors, including Sikora, to estimate his remaining time on Earth:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ce-that-helped-Lockerbie-bombers-release.html

2. In that article, it also comes forth an allegation that this was a deal the British Government did:
Senior business sources have told The Sunday Telegraph that Britain was desperate that Megrahi should not die in jail after warnings by Libya in May that if this happened trade deals between the two countries – worth billions of pounds – would be cancelled. British businessmen were also told that plans to open a London office of the Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign fund with $136billion (£83billion) to invest, would be jeopardised if Megrahi died in jail.
 


Extortion card, don't leave home without it.
 


I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist. This could be a fluke too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

There were at least four U.S. intelligence officers on the passenger list, with rumours, never confirmed, of a fifth onboard. The presence of these men on the flight later gave rise to a number of conspiracy theories, in which one or more of them were said to have been targeted.[24]
Couple of months before Lockerbie bombing, the US shot down an Iranian passenger airliner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles on 3 July 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran–Iraq War.

The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children,
 


what said:
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
You do. Listing those things together implies you think there is or could be a connection.

Anyway, since I reject the concept of "compassionate release" altogether, I wouldn't do it anyway, but in the case of a mass murder? Crazy.
 


russ_watters said:
You do. Listing those things together implies you think there is or could be a connection.

Yes you're right. Just having hard time believing they would free him out of the blue. But it turns out compassionate release is allowed in some countries and states, so his release makes more sense now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_release
 


what said:
Yes you're right. Just having hard time believing they would free him out of the blue. But it turns out compassionate release is allowed in some countries and states, so his release makes more sense now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_release

No, it doesn't.
 


I think what is saying he hadn't heard about "compassionate release" before and so went off on a speculative tangent. If nothing else, compassionate release makes more sense than those idle conspiracy theories.
 


Title is very misleading:
Fury as doctor who said Lockerbie bomber would die in three months admits: He could live for a decade

Cancer specialist Professor Sikora, who assessed the 58-year-old, admitted in comments published yesterday that it was 'embarrassing' that Megrahi has lived much longer than expected.

He told the Sunday Times: 'There was always a chance he could live for ten years, 20 years . . . But it's very unusual.'

Otherwise, it has nothing to do with how many people he killed. If the diagnosis carried out was honest and by law the person had to be released under those circumstances, I really do not see what's the problem.
 


rootX said:
Title is very misleading:

Otherwise, it has nothing to do with how many people he killed. If the diagnosis carried out was honest and by law the person had to be released under those circumstances, I really do not see what's the problem.

Why release him? Let him rot in his hole. :devil:
 


Cyrus said:
Why release him? Let him rot in his hole. :devil:

Compassion. That makes the system better than him.

Not to say that I'm taking a position on this, but, in principle, we as a society do seek the moral high ground.
 


russ_watters said:
I think what is saying he hadn't heard about "compassionate release" before and so went off on a speculative tangent. If nothing else, compassionate release makes more sense than those idle conspiracy theories.

Yeah, I never heard about it before.

So now the OP diverges into two controversies. One is the question whether or not compassionate release should be instituted. The second is human error in the chain of command which led to the release of a high profile inmate.
 


what said:
human error

:confused:
 


Ivan Seeking said:
Compassion. That makes the system better than him.

Not to say that I'm taking a position on this, but, in principle, we as a society do seek the moral high ground.

Oooh, compassion. Okayyy. :rolleyes: (Not against you, but that argument you put forth).

He should have been put to death.
 


Cyrus said:
Why release him? Let him rot in his hole. :devil:

Because by law the person had to be released under those circumstances. If he were put to death on the emotional grounds then that would have been more troubling IMO.
 


rootX said:
Because by law the person had to be released under those circumstances. If he were put to death on the emotional grounds then that would have been more troubling IMO.

No, I was implying he should have been put to death back in the 80s when he did the crime.

I'm not sure what their laws are concerning this, but whatever they are - they are stupid. And it is my understanding that a Judge has to grant such a case, it is not automatic. If this is true, then those Judges are colossal morons and should be taken down from the bench.
 
Last edited:


rootX said:
Otherwise, it has nothing to do with how many people he killed. If the diagnosis carried out was honest and by law the person had to be released under those circumstances
No.
There is no obligation in the law to release a terminally ill prisoner. It is..<i>optional</i>.

It should not be an option for mass murderer in any case.
 


Ivan Seeking said:
Compassion. That makes the system better than him.
Nope.
It makes the criminal have more rights than the non-criminals, namely to do atrocious acts and get away with them, i.e, undermining and parasitizing on the social contract, and still getting treated in the way that only law-abiding citizens should be treated.
 


arildno said:
Nope.
It makes the criminal have more rights than the non-criminals, namely to do atrocious acts and get away with them, i.e, undermining and parasitizing on the social contract, and still getting treated in the way that only law-abiding citizens should be treated.

I agree 1000%. I guess the moral of the story its only ok to imprison/execute a mass murderers as long as some rich old white guy doesn't lose money over it.Maybe now that Rage Against The Machine is back together they will write a song about this.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Compassion. That makes the system better than him.

Not to say that I'm taking a position on this, but, in principle, we as a society do seek the moral high ground.
Surely that's not the only thing better about our system, nor should it be necessary to prove our superiority via this release.

It is easy to get angry about this but there is also a logical basis behind it: the bomber was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisoned. That means he was expected to die in prison. So to release him because he was (supposedly) dying is a contradiction of his sentence. It is illogical and morally wrong.
 


rootX said:
Because by law the person had to be released under those circumstances. If he were put to death on the emotional grounds then that would have been more troubling IMO.
There is no law that people serving life sentences are to be released if they are terminally ill. A life sentence means they are expected to remain in prison until they die.

This was a deal for money.
 


Though I'm not supporting any side, even Al-Gadhafi himself, but I believe he showed a point, go to 4:10...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P18D7mk6kwE


My personal opinion is the criminal should be given death penalty once convicted of the bombing.

... Talking about politics [being ruled under the table]
 


drizzle said:
Though I'm not supporting any side, even Al-Gadhafi himself, but I believe he showed a point, go to 4:10...
No, he did not make a point at 4:10. If Gaddafi had no role in the welcome ceremony, then that's all the point that was necessary to make. However, he brought up the ridiculous sham of a trial that the Bulgarian/Palestinian medics were put through, and sentenced to death after having been tortured and coerced into confessions. His own son admitted that this was a miscarriage of justice, but he calls it a fair trial in the interview. (look up "bulgarian nurses trial")
 


Evo said:
There is no law that people serving life sentences are to be released if they are terminally ill. A life sentence means they are expected to remain in prison until they die.

I am not sure but I was not stating it as fact rather copy pasting from the earlier post where I suggested this as a case if it were true.

This was a deal for money

OP source does not go into that kind of details but
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ce-that-helped-Lockerbie-bombers-release.html
seems to contradict what the doctor in this one claimed:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291939/Fury-Lockerbie-bomber-doctor-Karol-

Cancer specialist Professor Sikora, who assessed the 58-year-old, admitted in comments published yesterday that it was 'embarrassing' that Megrahi has lived much longer than expected.

He told the Sunday Times: 'There was always a chance he could live for ten years, 20 years . . . But it's very unusual

Professor Karol Sikora, one of the examining doctors and the medical director of CancerPartnersUK in London, told The Sunday Telegraph: “The figure of three months was suggested as being helpful [by the Libyans].