- This topic has 62 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
We either accept the rule of law we live under or we don’t it’s not a case of picking and choosing to suit our position…..
So do we also accept the law is infallible, mistakes are never made and there are never any miscarriages of justice?
If the law puts the wrong person behind bars we just shrug our shoulders and say, ‘not to worry you were convicted under "due process" so take it on the chin – life sucks but hey you were convicted under due process so you cannot complain.".
In comparing the two cases under discussion, every case should be considered on its own metits – not one size fits all – therefore I see no problem in having differing views on the two cases.
….. it is my view that Jack Straw’s rejection of the Parole Boards decision to release Ronnie Biggs was a political decision (see my opening post in the Ronnie Biggs thread) he posed no threat to society and grounds for compassion were overwhelming – therefore making him a political prisoner.
Any decision made by a politician can always be construed as being political and for that reason I do not believe politicians should be making such decisions.
Regarding the Straw decision the guidelines for compassionate release are that a prisoner is considered for release on compassionate release when they are deemed to have three months left to live. When Straw made the initial decision about Biggs I don’t believe such a prognosis existed.
When a three month life expectancy prognosis was made Straw made the decision to free him. It looks to me as though Straw was simply following the published guidelines.
The Biggs case was always going to be controversial – he is a man who polarizes opinion – in some quarters he a modern day folk hero in others a nasty piece of work who evaded justice (with many views between the two) – whatever decision was made there was going to be an outcry in some quarters.
Am I right in thinking that the man whose daughter died in the bombing and has since become a sort of spokesperson for the Brits who died has always maintained that the Libyan was unfairly imprisoned. And was the government decision to release Biggs because they were planning to release this other guy and realised that it would be hypocritical to release one and not the other.[Can I just say what an amazing thread this is and, although I haven’t got time to read it at the moment because I’m getting ready to go away for a couple of weeks I intend to read it properly when I get back. The sort of opinions that restore a bit of faith in humanity when that faith is struggling to comprehend a lot of things].
Re Lockerbie, moehat, I think you refer to Jim Swires – and yes, he does believe Megrahi is innocent.
He is also the absolute double of my father-in-law (not that this has huge relevance to the debate).
Yes, Jim Swire. A more dignified and sensible gent would be hard to imagine given the dreadful circumstances he found himself in.
The father of a daughter blown-to-pieces by a terrorist could well be forgiven the ‘luxury’ of being allowed the peace of mind that comes from knowing someone has at least been convicted of the atrocity, even if that conviction was less than certain.
In the same – in this case wholly unforgiveable – way that too many innocent folk have been locked up by a police force desperate to get collars felt: Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Stefan Kiszko etc etc.
The fact that Swire’s been a staunch advocate of Megrahi’s innocence speaks volumes for him as a man and is damning enough evidence in my view that ‘due process’ of the law had not been wholly followed.
As for Megrahi’s release, I actually believe it was a brave and humane decision to allow it and the subtle differences between his and Biggs’ grounds for ‘compassionate release’ has been ably articulated by Paul O, with which I’d agree.
However only the ultra-naive could have expected a quiet reception for Megrahi in Libya and I can’t believe any politician did expect anything other than the rapturous welcome he got. Brown et al’s condemnation of the reception was no more than the rehearsed public placation of an unpleasant though wholly anticipated event.
….I don’t see the difference.
in one case, a clearly guilty man puts two fingers up at the system.
in the other case, the system puts two fingers up at a clearly not-guilty man.
terminal illness intervenes for both.
the first one crawls back for free medical care – putting another two fingers up at the system – and it becomes "compassionate" to give it to him outside jail – a third set of two-fingers put up by him against the system.
the second one has to drop his attempts to clear his name – system puts up another two fingers at him – and it becomes "compassionate" to release him because it means the system gets away with not having to account for what it did – a third set of two-fingers against him.
still, i suppose a population gets the society it deserves.
small wonder it is so open to being herded and milked:
http://hanskoechler.com/Koechler-Global … access.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmKxgRzc3f0
best regards
wit
That’s very good Wit.
But, you can bang your drum and jump up and down on your hat all you like the fact is under the law both men are guilt.
Now, I may believe one of them is innocent and subject to a miscarriage of justice, you may too but are you seriously suggesting that holding that belief alone is sufficient to differentiate between how prisoners are treated?
Or, is it the case that in a democracy we accept the rule of law and on occasions when we may find ourselves at odds with it we campaign, we demonstrate, we lobby to have those laws or decisions made under those laws changed.
What we shouldn’t be doing is just making up as we go along and basing our decisions on personal prejudices, bending in the breeze of popular "Daily Mail" opinion, so to speak.
Pompete, I think wit’s point is that the rule of law was applied in the case of Biggs, but it was not in the case of Megrahi.
If we accept that premise, then the two cases are very different. If we choose not to accept it, then they will appear the same at face value.
You appear to accept that the rule of law was applied in Megrahi’s case – which is entirely your right. The evidence presented by wit – from independent observers skilled in international law – would suggest that it wasn’t.
And thus we have our impasse. We either believe the trial was legit, or we don’t. I am personally convinced that it was not, and can therefore see the difference between the Biggs and Megrahi release scenarios.
Under the law – as it was applied – both men are indeed guilty. But only one of them received an inducement to drop his appeal, in order to secure his release. Does that make the law an ass, or not?
Regarding the Straw decision the guidelines for compassionate release are that a prisoner is considered for release on compassionate release when they are deemed to have three months left to live. When Straw made the initial decision about Biggs I don’t believe such a prognosis existed
When Straw made his initial decision – a rejection of the Parole Boards recommendation – he did so on the grounds that Biggs was "Unrepentant".
The decision had nothing to do with any consideration of compassionate release. Biggs was eligible for release under the current guildlines having served 1/3 of his sentance. The Parole Board recommended his release as he posed no futher threat to society – it was nothing to do with his then state of health.
Regarding the Straw decision the guidelines for compassionate release are that a prisoner is considered for release on compassionate release when they are deemed to have three months left to live. When Straw made the initial decision about Biggs I don’t believe such a prognosis existed
When Straw made his initial decision – a rejection of the Parole Boards recommendation – he did so on the grounds that Biggs was "Unrepentant".
The decision had nothing to do with any consideration of compassionate release. Biggs was eligible for release under the current guildlines having served 1/3 of his sentance. The Parole Board recommended his release as he posed no futher threat to society – it was nothing to do with his then state of health.
….. and your point is?
Pompete, I think wit’s point is that the rule of law was applied in the case of Biggs, but it was not in the case of Megrahi.
Fair enough GH, we’ll just have to differ in our views.
My understanding is the trial was held under Scottish Law – why else would the Scottish Justice Minister have sole say in the release of Al Megrahi, so I’m not sure of the relevance of experts in International Law, rather than Scottish Law offering an opinion.
Of course there is the fact the trial was held without a jury but as I understand it this was one of the three stipulations insisted upon by Libya before them agreeing to hand over their two countrymen.
Pompete
What "the rule of law" means is that the law is above everyone and applies to everyone equally – both rulers and ruled.
The biggest threat to it is when governments start thinking themselves above the law, its master rather than its servant. Because the executive has huge power, it often gets to thinking – and acting – that it can exercise its power however it wants.
You didn’t need to get into the detail of Scottish law to see the UK and US governments and their intelligence services control the Lockerbie hearing through the evidence, hiding behind self-issued "public interest immunity" certificates whenever inconsistencies and irrationalities arose, telling the Court " you have to trust us, we can’t say why because its a matter of national security".
A political decision had been made as to what the result should be (one or more Libyans had to be convicted) and the whole process was then skewed to make sure that was what happened.
It was far more than a miscarriage of justice in the decision by the judges (though even that aspect was enough for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to do its bit on in 2007:
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293
The defining feature was the calculated subversion of the rule of law in the way the result was engineered by the governments involved.
Biggs isn’t in the same universe as this kind of stuff.
The Lockerbie trial was in 2000. The UN observer has drawn the parallel with the political decisions made soon afterwards by the US and UK to destroy public order in Iraq and Afghanistan through invasion, and the similar afterthought attempts to create a legal justification for them.
best regards
wit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.