Why was Lockerbie killer set free?
August 22nd, 2009This one is in the realm of ethics, or thereabouts. The convicted bomber of flight Panam 103 from London to New York, Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi who was accused of killing 270 people in 1988 has been released by a Scottish Court. He has been released because he’s suffering from prostrate cancer. Not only is this illness terminal but it is in it’s final stages with the result that he now has only three months to live. The judge said that he’s sending him home to die. Unsurprisingly, there has been an uproar against this.
Well, the uproar is quite understandable. Firstly, the man was not given capital punishment for killing 270 people (Unfortunately, Scotland does not permit Capital Punishment irrespective of the crime). And on top of that he has now been allowed to go free. The relatives of those 270 people who died in this attack are outraged and they feel that even if the man has to die he should have died in prison, away from his loved ones. After all they too lost their kin who died a horrible death in mid air. Therefore according to them it is betrayal of justice to their dead relatives. And they are dead right.
There has been a lot of speculation that since the evidence against him was circumstantial (In the sense that firstly he worked at the airport and secondly he was seen buying the clothes and other stuff which were found in the suitcase in which the bomb was placed) and because of his terminal disease it may be seen as a humanitarian gesture, and is therefore justified. Well, here are the counter points to that argument.
Firstly, just read the verdict which was given after the trial.
“There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused [al Megrahi], and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the Indictment as amended.”
Read this again- “There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt”. Well, if that be the case I believe the man was rightly convicted, circumstantial evidence or not. There is no arguing about this fact now, after so many years. And therefore as far as the law is concerned the man is guilty as hell.
Secondly, Gaddafi had owned up responsibility for this attack and paid billions of dollars as compensation to the relatives. I mean would he have paid even a penny if al-Megrahi was not involved in this bombing? If I were in his place I would have asked for this guy’s release in return of compensation, if this man was indeed innocent. So anyone who still feels otherwise does not know how things work in international affairs.
About the release itself, it has now come to light that it had a lot to do with the Libyan oil which Britain is keen on and this has been said by none other than Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi who negotiated his release. Off course, Britain has denied it but I’m sure we are all mature enough not to believe in this denial. There is no doubt that it had a lot to do with the Libyan oil. And may be that’s all there is to it.
Also, please note that the man has been given a hero’s welcome back home by people who feel that this bombing was indeed justified which was carried out in retaliation to American strikes in Libya in April 1986 in which a small baby girl adopted by Gaddafi was also killed among many others. And therefore for these people al-Megrahi is indeed a hero. This is another pointer to the fact that al-Megrahi was indeed guilty.
Lastly, from spiritual perspective I must say that even if Britain did not execute him God, or in his case Allah, has given the kind of punishment he deserves. Yeah, he will die a painful death and he should indeed. Americans may have been guilty of killing innocent people in Libya (and elsewhere) but to kill other innocents in retaliation to those is wrong. Islam itself says that if you kill one innocent person you have actually killed a part of humanity. And as they say- Allah is great. Yeah, I believe them. He sure is.
Related Post
No related posts















August 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Hey lady, the guy was released on humanitarian grounds. Dont make it sound like anything else because it is not fair. In any case the guy will be dead in a few months from now.
Comment on this Comment
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I agree wid Scott. d man was let off since he's dying in any case. u r making dis humanatarian gesture in2 a financial deal. even if it is how d hell dos it matter. d guy is dying for god's sake. u rightly said in d beginning, its a matter of ethics and morality.
Comment on this Comment
Comments on : I agree wid Scott. d man was l....
Comment By : paul
September 14, 2009
OK. Dev D and Scott, you are allowed your opinions, but are you both insane?! the man had loads of evidence and was convicted as the killer of 270 PEOPLE..that's 270 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins....dead. Imagine he went to you and killed your mother or father...wouldn't you wish him dead? The only reason why you allow this humanitarian gesture to occur is because those people dead are not related to you in any way, so you have no personal hatred towards this man. I only hope that you realize how wrong you are on being ok with this man's release. Thank you Sush Jaitly for a beautifully written blog on these horrible decisions and enlightening ignorant people on the issues at hand!
Comment on this Comment
Another Comment on : OK. Dev D and Scott, you are a....
Comment By : Sush
You cannot comment on this comment
August 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@scott and @ dev d, both of u r being naive if not crazy. he is a killer nd shud have been executed. instead he was given alife sentence which was not carried out either. if this is wat justice is i can only pity uk for this. americans r rite in feeling bad abt it.
Comment on this Comment