Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber can live on for a decade.

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Al Megrahi, who was said to be terminally ill. Participants explore the implications of his prolonged life after release, the motivations behind his compassionate release, and the ethical considerations surrounding such decisions in the context of his past actions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express outrage over the release of Al Megrahi, citing the number of victims he was responsible for and questioning the authorities' decisions.
  • Others suggest that the decision was influenced by political and economic factors, including alleged deals between the British government and Libya.
  • A few participants discuss the concept of "compassionate release," with some arguing it should not apply to mass murderers, while others contend it is a legal and ethical consideration.
  • There are claims that the medical assessments leading to his release were questionable, with references to financial incentives for doctors involved.
  • Some participants speculate about the motivations behind the bombing and the presence of U.S. intelligence officers on the flight, suggesting possible conspiracy theories.
  • Disagreement exists regarding whether the law mandates the release of terminally ill prisoners or if it is merely an option, with some asserting it should not apply in cases of severe crimes.
  • Participants express differing views on the moral implications of compassion in the justice system, with some advocating for a strict approach to punishment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the appropriateness of Al Megrahi's release, the motivations behind it, and the ethical implications of compassionate release for serious offenders. Multiple competing views remain on the legal and moral aspects of the situation.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the legal framework surrounding compassionate release and the specific circumstances that led to Al Megrahi's case. Participants reference various sources and opinions, indicating a complex interplay of legal, ethical, and emotional factors.

  • #91


Cyrus said:
Seriously?
Yes.
nismaratwork said:
Russ: What Cyrus said... if that isn't dishonorable, what IS?!
C'mon guys, no games. If it is so obvious to you, then you shouldn't have a difficult time explaining it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


russ_watters said:
Yes. C'mon guys, no games. If it is so obvious to you, then you shouldn't have a difficult time explaining it.

It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.
 
  • #93


Cyrus said:
It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.

Yeah, what he just said. This seems like a burden-of-proof issue for you Russ_Waters; I think most people would consider that 11 days served per murder would be a very light sentence, especially with a profit motive.
 
  • #94


russ_watters said:
What is dishonorable about it?

Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?
 
  • #95


Ivan Seeking said:
Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?

I like my racist hot dogs with extra sauerkraut. Sorry, just trying to inject some levity into a really depressing topic. I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than a miscarriage of justice, and a slap in the face of international courts and law. There is nothing to be done now, that would not endanger Libyan-International relations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96


russ_watters said:
What is dishonorable about it?

This is how you know you have reached libertarian nirvana
 
  • #97


j93 said:
This is how you know you have reached libertarian nirvana

Come again? You'll have to explain that one to me.
 
  • #98


Ivan Seeking said:
Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?
Don't make assumptions beyond what I say, Ivan. I didn't say I support the action - I certainly at least fnd it uncouth - I just find the term "dishonorable" to be a very odd word choice.
 
  • #99


Cyrus said:
It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.
I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.
 
  • #100


russ_watters said:
I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

I would probably replace that word (which would better represent a person, not a company) with 'lack of integrity,' or, maybe, unscrupulous.
 
  • #101


russ_watters said:
I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

Is this really an issue to get semantic about? REALLY?
 
  • #102


nismaratwork said:
Is this really an issue to get semantic about? REALLY?

Chill out man.
 
  • #103


nismaratwork said:
Is this really an issue to get semantic about? REALLY?
I force people to be precise about their word usage and definitions, not to mention scientific principles - I do it on purpose and I'm actually proud of it. If people see it as being pedantic, so be it. But a great many of the discussions had in the politics forum in particular come down to arguments over definitions/word usage. I'm sure you can think of several recent and big issues of definitions, such as "murder" and "terrorism". Over in philosophy, we have "random" and "supernatural" in the same thread.

"Honor" is overused word and I want people to be clear about what definition they are using. The fact that no one has yet given a clear/concise definition of the word itself is telling. People have just repeated what BP has apparently done, which isn't in dispute, as if that answers the question.
 
  • #104


russ_watters said:
I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

But, Russ. YOU chose the word. See post #88.

Here is your clear/concise definition of the word -
Dishonor: Lacking integrity; unprincipled
 
  • #105


Tsu said:
But, Russ. YOU chose the word. See post #88.
The post I was responding to said "not an honorable thing to do" which is basically the word dishonorable broken apart.
Here is your clear/concise definition of the word -
Dishonor: Lacking integrity; unprincipled
One thing odd about the dictionary definitions is that "honor/ honorable" and "dishonorable" don't look like exact opposites. Honorable tends to imply honesty. The first definition of honor is honest/fairness. But the "unprincipled" definition tends to fit better.

I think also my issue has to do with personification as Cyrus said. Like I said - it just seems an odd word to apply to a company to me. And it is a word often overused, like "hero".
 
Last edited:
  • #106


Cyrus said:
I would probably replace that word (which would better represent a person, not a company) with 'lack of integrity,' or, maybe, unscrupulous.

Corporations are persons with all the rights of a person. Pick a word of your choosing. :smile:
 
  • #107


edward said:
Corporations are persons with all the rights of a person. Pick a word of your choosing. :smile:

Certain rights, but not all rights or even most rights. They have no habeus corpus, no vote, and pay extra taxes. They don't even enjoy a right to life (Chapter 7) and the 13th Amendment never applies to them.
 
  • #108


CRGreathouse said:
Certain rights, but not all rights or even most rights. They have no habeus corpus, no vote, and pay extra taxes. They don't even enjoy a right to life (Chapter 7) and the 13th Amendment never applies to them.

Of course, they're not alive, can't be imprisoned as they lack a corpus to habeus...
 
  • #109


Cyrus said:
Come again? You'll have to explain that one to me.
"Libertarianism entails an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech.[1] The term libertarianism has come to encompass a range of beliefs about social structures with some libertarians striving for minimization of the state,[2] and others desiring to achieve complete elimination of any hierarchical imposition of authority to include an opposition to capitalism and other institutions viewed as coercive"

Libertarianism doesn't judge people actions ideally, your free to do and believe as you want therefore there is no reason to think what BP is dishonorable (especially since it has not stepped on my rights).

or perhaps you think Libertarianism = Free Market Capitalism
in which case there is actions that the market rejects or not. There is no wrong or right if there is no effect on your stock price. There was no effect on the stock until after the oil spill so why should I think they did anything wrong because if they did then the market would of shown this a while ago when the moved the bomber.
 
  • #110


CRGreathouse said:
Certain rights, but not all rights or even most rights. They have no habeus corpus, no vote, and pay extra taxes. They don't even enjoy a right to life (Chapter 7) and the 13th Amendment never applies to them.
They also can't vote for the obvious reason that you could use it recursively to vote as many times as you want.
 
  • #111


j93 said:
They also can't vote for the obvious reason that you could use it recursively to vote as many times as you want.

So we agree, then, that corporate personhood is substantially limited.
 
  • #112


CRGreathouse said:
So we agree, then, that corporate personhood is substantially limited.

It is different, but like wave-particle duality it has the benefits of being a single entity, while also being many real PEOPLE. Corporations cannot vote, but they can now use their money in campaigns without meaningful restraint. They don't have the right to habeus corpus, but even at the level of their constituent individuals that is rarely an issue. They pay extra taxes, but are able to avoid much of that in Aruba and other fine countries, and of course they have the benefit of being able to sustain and manipulate debt without many of the consequences of an individual person. Limited or "less" is misleading at this point.

When the time comes to write checks for the C-class execs, it is made clear that their leadership is critical to the success of the corporation, but when blame is to be apportioned, it is nearly impossible due to internal complexities. In the equation of "Rights of people/Responsibilities + Limitations of people" large corporations are well in the black. A person couldn't possibly cause the gulf oil disaster, and a corporation isn't going to be put in jail en masse for it either. Enron, Tycho, Citibank, Lehman Brothers, AIG, ... the range of how and who is held accountable ranges from "scott free" through "one or two criminals" to "corporate death with no personal responsibility".

Maybe honor doesn't apply because it is already impossible to find, along with integrity, and personal responsibility.
 
  • #113


nismaratwork said:
Maybe honor doesn't apply because it is already impossible to find, along with integrity, and personal responsibility.

Yes. A system that relies on the 'integrity' or 'personal responsibility' of corporations is flawed from the start.

nismaratwork said:
[Corporations] can now use their money in campaigns without meaningful restraint.

I would love to discuss this point re: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I tried on the original thread, but no one was willing to give meaningful suggestions... if you're game, start anew thread.

nismaratwork said:
They pay extra taxes, but are able to avoid much of that in Aruba and other fine countries, and of course they have the benefit of being able to sustain and manipulate debt without many of the consequences of an individual person.

I'd also like to discuss this, though international law makes it a tricky subject. I'll admit I don't understand the latter half of your sentence here.
 
  • #114


CRGreathouse said:
Yes. A system that relies on the 'integrity' or 'personal responsibility' of corporations is flawed from the start.



I would love to discuss this point re: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I tried on the original thread, but no one was willing to give meaningful suggestions... if you're game, start anew thread.



I'd also like to discuss this, though international law makes it a tricky subject. I'll admit I don't understand the latter half of your sentence here.

Sounds good to me, I'll fire up a thread tomorrow when I've gotten some sleep (you don't want to see a thread from a sleepy me). I look forward to discussing this issue, and I can accept the complexity of the issue.

For my last sentence, what I mean is that on one hand, a corporation that builds too much debt may risk having their stock downgraded so they aren't free of sanction of course. In addition, individual people don't have to worry about hostile takeovers or market leverage. On the other hand, a corporation can leverage debt into a great profit without risking their FICO score, or their home... having neither. The impetus to avoid insolvency is great, and losing your job and those of the people you manage is clearly to be avoided, but the difference between losing house and home and your credit vs. a potentially temporary downgrading of your debt seems to move people and banks very differently.
 
  • #115


CRGreathouse said:
So we agree, then, that corporate personhood is substantially limited.
The idea of a corporation isn't a natural god-given concept why should it it have complete personhood at the expense of the democracy of the US. You can't have a democracy and the ability of anyone with enough money and time to vote as many times as they want.
 
  • #116


j93 said:
The idea of a corporation isn't a natural god-given concept why should it it have complete personhood at the expense of the democracy of the US. You can't have a democracy and the ability of anyone with enough money and time to vote as many times as they want.

Try paying attention before posting. Kay, thanks bie.
 
  • #117


Cyrus said:
Try paying attention before posting. Kay, thanks bie.

:smile:

j93: Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Did you just skim the last page for "corporate" and "person"?! Your post makes 0 sense.
 
  • #118


I am sticking to my original use of the word honorable which was in answer to a previous post dealing with the legality of certain actions. Those action being the lobbying that was done to gain the release of a terrorist.

edward said:
I wasn't trying to prove a legal issue. We will probably never know the judges motivation. My point was that the admitted lobbying itself was not an honorable thing to do.


The lengthy mentor initiated dissection of the semantics of one word and the following off topic discussion was totally unnecessary.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #119


j93 said:
CRGreathouse said:
j93 said:
They also can't vote for the obvious reason that you could use it recursively to vote as many times as you want.
So we agree, then, that corporate personhood is substantially limited.
The idea of a corporation isn't a natural god-given concept why should it it have complete personhood at the expense of the democracy of the US. You can't have a democracy and the ability of anyone with enough money and time to vote as many times as they want.
Cyrus said:
Try paying attention before posting. Kay, thanks bie.
Should I post like this to make it easier.
I thought people would be able to figure out recursion for themselves.

CR argued that personhood is limited because a corporation cannot vote.
I argued that if a corporation could vote (had complete personhood), it could vote infinitely with the only requirement being time and money to create a new corporation which it can take ownership of.
ie if corporation A owns corporation B,C,D...Z it has 26 votes since each corporation is a person legally with a right to vote and if corporation B owns corporation B-a, b , c ...,z you can continue this indefinitely, hence corporations could vote infinitely (incompatible with democracy) unless corporations are not allowed to own corporations(a contradiction with a corporation having complete personhood).
Therefore corporations with complete personhood (the right to own corporations and vote) and democracy are incompatible. You can't have both.

Now that simple recursion has been explained to show why corporations could vote infinitely
hopefully you should be able to understand why "complete personhood of corporations happens at the expense of the democracy of the US."unless ,Cyrus, you are referring to why personhood of corporations is being discussed, in which case ,
you must not have realized the thread has been semi-hijacked at least twice. Once to discuss BP
and another to discuss personhood of a company after russ had qualms about using certain words when
describing corporations. I assume nismara isn't referring to the topic of personhood in the thread since
he has been a party to the hijack to that topic.
 
Last edited:
  • #120


russ_watters said:
The bottom line here is that a judge (not "the government") ordered this release and he had in hand testimony that made it allowable (the 3 months to live prediction).

That's not true. The decision to release on compassionate grounds was made by the Scottish Justice Secretary, not by any judge.

Right now all we have is the coincidence that lobbying happened - but so what? Lobbying always happens!

The Scottish First Minister apparently wrote to the US yesterday claiming that BP did not lobby the Scottish government regarding the release:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-10720279

Mr Salmond said the Scottish government made the decision on "compassionate grounds" as Megrahi is terminally ill.

He said there were no representations from oil giant BP on the matter.