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.

  • #121


j93 said:
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.

My understanding was that he essentially agreed with you, and that you continued to argue the issue with him (a pet peeve of mine). In any event, my comment was snide (due to being peeved :-p), and I apologize. (As for the whole corporations deal, I'm not arguing about it one way or another.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122


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



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

BP lobbied the British Government.

The issue has returned to public attention because of the role of current "devil incarnate" BP in securing the deal to release the murderer. The troubled petroleum giant admitted last week that it lobbied the British government in 2007 to conclude a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. This outrage was perpetrated ostensibly to protect a $900 million oil-exploration deal signed with Tripoli that year. London concluded the agreement but the Scottish government rejected releasing al-Megrahi, who was diagnosed with cancer the following year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/21/bps-terrorist/

Emphasis mine.
 
  • #123


edward said:
BP lobbied the British Government.

In 2007 to sign a prisoner transfer agreement that did not preclude this guy from possibly being sent over. He wasn't sent over because of the PTA (and in fact the transfer request was denied anyway, so certainly BP did not cause him to be released), and whether or not it was signed he still would have been eligible for compassionate release, which is not related to transferring prisoners to other countries
 
  • #124


j93 said:
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.

CRGreathouse: "Corporations are limited; they can't do X."
j93: "If corporations could do X, it would be bad, so they can't do X."
CRGReathouse: "So we agree, corporations are limited in that they can't do X."
 
  • #125


When you have a very emotive issue such as this, it helps if there is a process to follow, a process that was established before the event. Just like a court of law has a process to determine guilt. In this case the Scottish minister with responsibility for this says he rigorously followed the process. At some point we have to trust him and verify what he has done. If he is right, we have to respect that even if we (who don't know all the details) disagree. Courts of law sometimes get it wrong. That's why we have appeal courts etc. In this case, there appears to be no means for anyone to appeal against the decision.
 
  • #127


edward said:
BP lobbied the British Government.

As Office Shredder said, that lobbying was two years before this event, and was not regarding the release on compassionate grounds.

Also, note that I said BP did not lobby the Scottish government: the Scottish govt and the British govt are different entities.
 
  • #128


CRGreathouse said:
CRGreathouse: "Corporations are limited; they can't do X."
j93: "If corporations could do X, it would be bad, so they can't do X."
CRGReathouse: "So we agree, corporations are limited in that they can't do X."
Oh sorry, The word limited usually seems to have a negative connotation so I misinterpreted it as such.
 
  • #129


cristo said:
As Office Shredder said, that lobbying was two years before this event, and was not regarding the release on compassionate grounds.

Also, note that I said BP did not lobby the Scottish government: the Scottish govt and the British govt are different entities.

Oh man, that's the kind of mistake that makes Scots turn red and kick a man in the haggis! I'm more interested at this point that the compassionate release was so unwarranted by the government, regardless of any lobbying by BP. I don't see the need to show a mass murderer the mercy of dying at home.