Quote:

---

There are some stories that are seared in a reporter's memory --images that never fade.

The release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison today reminded me of one of those stories.

It happened December 21, 1988 - covering the families and friends of Pan Am flight 103. Dozens of people rushed to JFK airport after learning the aircraft carrying their loved ones had crashed over Lockerbie, Scotland.

At the time, I was a correspondent at CBS's flagship TV station, WCBS in New York. The assignment desk sent me and my camera crew to the arrival terminal. Relatives and friends of Flight 103 were already there. It seemed that most knew what had happened.

There were tears, muffled screams, sobs, as husbands and wives, fathers, mothers and siblings learned the awful truth.

One woman collapsed on the terminal floor. I heard her before I saw her. As I watched her companions attempt to offer assistance, not for the first time, I felt awkward about the intrusive nature of my job.

One instinct said 'find the cameraman, get pictures'. But my personal sense of sadness, seeing so many grieving people, made me pause.

As I stood there, my photographer walked up. We talked about it and decided we had more than enough images of pain and angst.

Our competitors got the pictures of the lady on the floor.

We didn't.

We didn't miss them.

There was enough sadness in that terminal to last a life time.

---

A Reporter Remembers Flight 103, 20 Years Later - Couric & Co. - CBS News

Yesterday Abdel Baset al-Megrahi ,who should've been executed for his mass murder of 270 people was released from prison on compassionate grounds.Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said that his terminal condition (he is dying of prostate cancer) and Scottish values bound her to release him.

Now he was sentenced to life in prison... That means in my simple mind that you stay in prison until you die. Instead ;he was allowed to return to Libya to a heroes welcome yesterday... a celebration that went on all night . Moammar Gadhafi sent his private jet to pick him up.He served a total of 12 days in prison for each of his victims . So apparently the Scots "values " allow for a dozen days jail time served per murder victim.

Meanwhile the families and friends of the victims of his massacre were left to recall all the pain and hurt he inflicted . He will spend his remaining days surrounded by loved ones .270 victims never got the chance .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Empathy in the Scottish Judicial system and the Pan Am 103 bombing

---

Hello tom:

IF, by your title, you are trying to discredit people who HAVE empathy, you are WAYYYYY off the mark. This ISN'T empathy... This is BAD policy wrapped up in BAD diplomacy done by STUPID UNEMPATHETIC people...

You aren't, are you, saying that you, yourself don't have empathy?? Of course, you do. It's just directed in a different direction... Here's an example of YOUR empathy.. If I'm wrong, I'll cop to it...

A judge is on the verge of losing her job in Texas because she closed the appeals office promptly at 5:00 PM after being notified that a defendant's lawyers were running behind. The appeal didn't get filed, and the guy was executed a couple hours later...

I know who YOUR empathy lies with...

Or take the Troy Davis case... Here's a guy sentenced to death who many now say is innocent... The Supreme Court is sending the case back to the lower court, but not without a vigorous dissent from Scalia and Thomas, who said that, from a constitutional standpoint, innocence is no bar from being executed.

I know who YOUR empathy lies with...

So, instead of trying to make political hay, why don't you just say the decision to let this guy go was just plain wrong?

excon

It was the reason given that is screwed up . I happen to think it typical of a pandering system ;and I actually did not go into what I think the real motives are for this political decision. (can you say blood for oil ? )

I have not commented on the other examples you cite so it is presumptious to assume where I stand on the cases.

Re Davis : Either Davis is guilty or 7 witnesses should be locked up for perjury. The testimony of 7 separate witnesses seems pretty compelling to me.

How long has these appeals been ongoing ? Is there a time that a reasonable appeals process is complete ?

Hello again, tom:

The cases aren't relevant. YOUR empathy for one side or the other is.

excon

Of course the cases are relevant.

Re the Michael Wayne Richard case :

Maybe Judge Sharon Keller should or should not be disciplined for her actions but that does not change the fact that Richard was guilty as hell. His lawyers appeal had to do with the method of exectution and nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.

He brutally raped and killed Marguerite Dixon, a Houston-area nurse and mother of seven ;and like the other case you mentioned had exhausted the appeals process. This last appeal was a ridiculous delay trick... The method of execution has been confirmed as Constitutional many times.

You ask me where my empathy lies ? You are right in your assumption that mine goes to the victim and the victim's family.

Empathy HAS NO PLACE in the court room. PERIOD.

Frankly, the judge who closed the appeals court at 5 pm sharp was RIGHT ON THE MONEY. Having empathy for either the victims OR the defendant would have been wrong. She applied the law and the policies of her office equally for ALL parties. That is what judges are supposed to do. (If it had been the plaintiff's attorney who had been running late in getting to the appeals office, nobody would be saying boo. But because it was the defendant's attorney, there's an uproar. THAT is not equal application of justice.)

The fool McAskill in Scottland did not apply even-handed justice in this case. He applied his own personal sense of right and wrong, rather than what the law says. The law says that al-Megrahi should have stayed in jail until he died. If that is what the law says, that is what should be applied. Not "empathy" for a guy with prostate cancer.

As a side note, there's a statistic that I read in the AMA that says that something like 8 out of 10 men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough to get it. It is also one of the easiest to treat and cure. Prostate cancer is actually very common among older men.

Are we to have empathy for every prostate cancer victim who appears before a judge and give them extra "empathy points" for being a cancer victim? If 8 out of 10 men get it eventually, with whom should our empathies lay? With the cancer victim who killed 270 people? Or the cancer victims (or potential cancer victims) who he killed?

As soon as you start looking at anything other than the law itself (age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or medical condition), no matter how compelling that outside factor might be, you have failed as a judge in your oath of equal application of the law. McAskill failed at his job.

Elliot

Hello again:

The POINT tom was making in his title is that EMPATHY is BAD. The point I make, and that you MISS, is that you're as empathetic as anyone. It's just directed differently...

Incredulously, though, you guys think that people who don't agree with you HAVE empathy, but YOUR side is empathy free. You guys AIN'T never going to get how ridiculous that sounds.. But, the people reading this will.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

A judge is on the verge of losing her job in Texas because she closed the appeals office promptly at 5:00 PM after being notified that a defendant's lawyers were running behind. The appeal didn't get filed, and the guy was executed a couple hours later...

---

I'm not defending the judge, I'll wait for the outcome before formulating an opinion. Based on what I've read though (it's in our paper every day), the guy's lawyers could have filed directly with a judge without any need for the court to remain open. Sure seems like I've read about many a case in Texas where a stay was issued after a phone call to a judge's home. Keller may be a jerk, I don't know, but it sounds to me like the guy had some incompetent lawyers and now someone wants their pound of flesh from the judge.

Quote:

---

Or take the Troy Davis case... Here's a guy sentenced to death who many now say is innocent... The Supreme Court is sending the case back to the lower court, but not without a vigorous dissent from Scalia and Thomas, who said that, from a constitutional standpoint, innocence is no bar from being executed.

I know who YOUR empathy lies with...

---

OK ex, I guess I'm the one charged with always telling folks what was really said in when it comes to SCOTUS. You claim that Scalia and Thomas said, "from a constitutional standpoint, innocence is no bar from being executed." What Scalia ACTUALLY said in his dissent was, "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved."

He began his dissent with, "Today this Court takes the extraordinary step—one not taken in nearly 50 years—of instructing a district court to adjudicate a state prisoner’s petition for an original writ of habeas corpus. The Court proceeds down this path even though every judicial and executive body that has examined petitioner’s stale claim of innocence has been unpersuaded, and (to make matters worst) even though it would be impossible for the District Court to grant any relief."

Sure sounds to me like Scalia and Thomas were the only 2 justices upholding their duty. And today, Scotland sucks.

Actually I was pointing out where empathy lies in the Scottish system... and it isn't with the victims.

Bringing this home... do you think that when the President talks about empathy in our system he has something else in mind than a predisposition to empathy for the criminal ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

The POINT tom was making in his title is that EMPATHY is BAD. The point I make, and that you MISS, is that you're as empathetic as anyone. It's just directed differently...

---

You are wrong. The same analytical perspective that I apply to finance, wherein I make my financial decisions based on the analysis of the data and not my personal feelings, should be applied to the law.

You have no idea how many times I have approved transaction for people that I have absolutely detested, and turned down transactions for people that I liked, because the DATA is what controls, not my personal empathy.

There are people who do this every day... put aside their empathy and just base their decisions of the FACTS. I work with many such people, so I know they are out there. That is what judges are SUPPOSED to do. And if they fail to do so, they have failed in their jobs.

Quote:

---

Incredulously, though, you guys think that people who don't agree with you HAVE empathy, but YOUR side is empathy free. You guys AIN'T never going to get how ridiculous that sounds.. But, the people reading this will.

---

Our side is not "empathy free". However, those on the right who are empathetic toward one side or the other would be failing in their jobs just as much as someone on the left who has empathy toward one side or the other. EVEN IF THE DECISION THE GUY ON THE RIGHT MAKES IS FAVORABLE TO ME PERSONALLY he will have been wrong for applying empathy instead of equal application of the law.

And yes, there are plenty of people out there who do this. But not the ones who are TRAINED not to do it. An analysts are. As scientists (the good ones) are. As engineers are. As some financial professionals are.

If you don't have that quality or that training, you don't belong on the bench of ANY court, much less the highest court of the land.

Excon[/quote]

Empathy is not necessarily justice.

What happened in Scotland was not justice.

One may argue forgiveness and mercy, but should that have not come from the families of the 270 killed, and not from some government official?





G&P

Justice is not blindfolded for nothing, it allows judges to ignore painful facts

Quote:

---

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown knew about the release. The U.S. strongly opposed it. Brown could have stopped it, had he decided to make a fuss. He didn't. So much for the "special relationship" between our two countries.

Remember, this was mainly a crime against Americans, who accounted for 189 of the victims. So it looks like open season on U.S. tourists. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin reckoned, al-Megrahi's 3,123 days served come out to 11.6 days in prison for each murder. It seems that life, especially American life, is cheap in Britain's justice system.

Though U.S. leaders strenuously objected to the release, they were ignored. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the crime "heinous," and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "We continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland."

Glad they spoke up. Still, we wonder: Is this what was meant when we were told America's diplomatic prestige would be enhanced in Europe once President Bush was out of office?
In fact, this was a well-telegraphed punch in the gut.

Curiously, last November, just after President Obama's election, Britain's Parliament passed a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya. We say "curious" because it appears the only prisoner it could have related to was al-Megrahi. Was he sick then? If not, why was it passed?

We wonder, and we're not alone, if this was a deal to curry favor with Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, who sent his private jet to pick up al-Megrahi. After all, energy giant BP has contracts and business dealings in Libya and no doubt wants more.

In all this, Britain and Scotland seem to mistake weakness for mercy. Now, knowing penalties will be soft, terrorists will feel emboldened to kill civilians on British soil. What a sad day.

---

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Justice Undone

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi could live easily another 10 years .He appears to be fit despite the medical report that he had a few months to live. .

Good Libyan cooking ?

Nahh...

Falsified medical records ? Yup.

Turns out that the release was part of the quid-pro-quo the Libyans demanded for an oil deal worth millions$$$$$$$.

Quote:

---

“It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for, three months was the critical point,” Sikora recently told The Sunday Times in London. “On the balance of probabilities I felt like I could sort of justify (that).”

---

Quote:

---

The only doctor that seemed to really assign his name to the fact that he had 90 days was a doctor hired by the Libyan's to do the medical exam,” he said. “All the others that examined him refused to make their statements, so it was a very poorly contrived deal right from the start.”


The Libyan government presented the Scottish government with Sikora's findings and that of two other experts before al-Megrahi was released, The Sunday Times reported. Sikora is the only doctor of those contacted by The Sunday Times to say he endorsed the three month life expectancy.

---

Daily Orange - Doctor admits embarrassment of Pan Am 103 bomber long outliving three-month life expectancy

And here's the icing on the cake. Guess which oil company is involved in the Libyan deal ?
Bret Stephens: A (Better) Reason to Hate BP - WSJ.com