Every time I think about this, it frosts my ass!



Where was the compassion for the 270 people he killed?



Life imprisonment is just that--LIFE--regardless of how long has remaining to live, or regardless of how one's death in prisonment occurs (natural, heart attack, cancer, etc.).

I just hope that his death is slow and very painful!

Deplorable..........worse, a throng of greeters in Libya, worst, Kadafi embraced this mass murderer.

Compassion isn't something you do for the other person, it's something you do for yourself and your own sense of morality.

Let's hope that neither of you are ever in a position to have to rely on another's compassion.

So it's "compassionate" for Scotland to release someone convicted of murdering 270 people when said criminal was sentenced to "life" imprisonment? Is it moral to do so?

Of course, Scotland can't show compassion for the families of the 270 who were murdered, according to your above statement. I suppose that's not as "moral" or important as the miserable life of one terrorist.

Who the heck are you? SeaCraig?

TRL

SeaCraig, you're kidding, aren't you?

Not at all. I don't believe in stewing in revenge. Should that guy have been punished. Sure. And he was. Now that he has a few weeks/months at most to live, and there's no chance he'll re-offend, what's lost by letting him go home and die with his family?

The whole retribution thing really bothers me. IMHO it's part of the reason why we have such a difficult time helping our own citizens.....they did it to themselves...they deserve to be poor...if they only _________..etc..

It's part and parcel of a power struggle. Anyone with small children knows you don't win a power struggle through force or punishment. You win through negotiation. Since Reagan, the conservatives have made "tough on crime" one of the "third rails" of politics. But where crime has fallen how has that happened? Through longer, stronger sentences? No. Mainly through community policing where cops are familiar with the area they patrol and are able to show a human face to law enforcement. If retribution worked we wouldn't have the most prisoners in the world.

If my grandfather were in prison for ________________ (fill in the blank with whatever is the worst crime to you) and he was near death, I would hope that he would be released to die with his family. How could I want that for someone in my family and deny that to others? To ME, that would be hypocritical.

And morally I'm complex. I'm the most anti organized religion person you'll ever meet, yet I believe many things that those religions espouse. And I tend to gravitate toward the things that bring people together rather than create a power struggle.

What that guy did (and that's still a big if given there is a credible argument that he either wasn't involved, or didn't do it alone) was heinous. And if he weren't near death he'd still be in prison.

We are really measured by how compassionate/forgiving/nice/helpful to the least amongst us.....imho.

You characterize this as "revenge". Is it not better described as "justice"? The man was convicted of murder...why is it seeking revenge to expect him to pay the price society/the law put for that?

It reminds me of the white man who was well over 70 when he was finally charged/convicted of murdering the four black girls at their church in Birmingham, Al, in 1963. Heard several people say something like "he's so old...that was so long ago...where is your mercy to put an old man in jail...". Ignoring the fact that he had lived decades afterwards as a free man....while those 4 girls were dead. Ignoring the fact that he had murdered those girls. Was putting him in jail "revenge" or was it from a sense of (very delayed) justice?

You can have compassion for him without making the choice to let him walk free. It's a pretty slim branch to equate compassion with letting him go free. How compassionate is it for the families of those murdered...why wait until he's terminal to exercise compassion...does compassion exist alone or is justice also something to be valued consistently?

And he was convicted. If people have doubts, they can/should pursue them. But how do they simply ignore the conviction and proceed to releasing him and then justify it by saying there were questions? Or that he was near the end of his own life?

I don't believe in capital punishment. And I do think that there should be means of reviewing cases based on new evidence, especially since so many have been exonerated as a result. But, I don't think a convicted murder such as this man should be set free unless his conviction were to be overturned. He should be treated with dignity in his final days, given food and medical care, which is compassionate. But not set free.

Good lord, I feel like a bad Hallmark card just vomited in my lap.

Perhaps the more compassionate course would have been to invite his family to Scotland to be with him at his death.

Many people in Scotland have been released from prison before their sentence was finished on these compassionate grounds. Why should he be any different. He's not being released to summer in The Hamptons, the man is soon going to be dead.

What is the purpose of prison? If it's to stop the person from being able to re-offend then someone on their deathbed is no threat and doesn't fit the definition. If it's to punish the person, to get back at them for what they did, then that is revenge.

I have no problem with him being convicted and sentenced and serving time. However, making him suffer in prison does not bring one of the people who died back. It doesn't improve the lives of any of the surviving friends or family. It only satisfies the desire some have for retribution.

The notion of a Penitentiary comes from the Quakers. It was supposed to be a place where the offender went to contemplate what they had done, how it had affected the society and that after that reflection the person would be able to re-integrate into society. It wasn't a place to be degraded and tortured and subjected to violence and humiliation. There are too many people who believe in retribution to change that, but I do think we can say someone who is at the end of their life is eligible for that kind of release. That we can demonstrate that we are more than "an eye for eye" type society.

In terms of justice, Scotland has this policy. It's what they're country has decided is justice. If you're convicted of a crime there and approach the end of your life you can apply for the compassionate release. He should be able to take advantage of it as any other person can.

Either or. It sounds like you think prison is either or. Again, I ask the question. What of justice? This man is a murderer. Is it just for a convicted murder to be free? Why is holding him accountable for his actions, at least in terms of the greater society's judgment about consequences, somehow seeking retribution? Is it not a consistent response to him regarding his actions (the focus being on him, not trying to change him or somehow extracting retribution). A man commits murder...he is caught, convicted, and sentenced...and that's retribution? Not the same way I would define retribution. Of course some want retribution. But that doesn't reduce prison to contemplation or retribution.

I follow your argument that Scotland sets other criminals free who are dying. So within the context of Scotland's practices, they are arguably consistent.

But justice is more than Scotland being consistent with their practices, just as compassion is more than setting a murderer free. And, therefore, I criticize Scotland for freeing a man who was found to be guilty of murder. And unless there is abuse, he is not "suffering" in prison in any way other than his own making. He is dying...he is suffering because he is dying...which he will be doing free just as he was doing in prison. Such suffering is not alleviated by either being in prison or being free.

I appreciate that you have responded thoughtfully, and hope to have done the same. We obviously have fundamental differences of opinion about things that are at the heart of this.

Maybe we can apply the same moral compassion to Richard Cheney and George W. Bush as Scotland's courts applied to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, should there ever be an administration that will bring them to justice for the deaths caused by the Iraq War.

Perhaps the surviving families, including those of the US soldiers who died, will be equally forgiving.

Well, Sea Buscuit, maybe compassion and justice will win out with his slow agonizing death before year's out. I don't have any sympathy for this guy, unless he was wrongfully convicted, which doesn't seem to be the case.

TRL

So it's revenge when a convicted murderer is sentenced and serves the time to which he was sentenced? If so, then no one should ever be incarcerated using your twisted logic. He was NOT punished. He was sentenced to life imprison. The key word there is "life." Whether he dies naturally in prison, suffers a fatal heart attack or stroke, is killed by fellow inmates--whatever--he dies in prison. THAT is the compassionate thing to do for the 270 families of those who were brutally murdered.

You may not espouse this particular point of view, but most people who have been against his release have said things like "he should suffer in prison", etc... Given that they have the policy they do, to deny him the same opportunity that other convicted criminals are given is retribution. Further, the conditions in prison are horrid. Beyond just being uncomfortable, lonely, hard, etc....the conditions are horrid. And I would dare say, those who are against this guys compassionate release would say that these horrid conditions are ok. That the prisoners deserve this.

Some of the things going on are no beef or no green leafy vegetables in most federal prisons. This leads to an iron deficiency. I have a family friend in federal prison who has injured his leg, it's swollen twice the size of the other leg, the skin is broken and infected. He believes he has fractured his leg. He was given a tube of neosporin. That's it. No xray, no antibiotics, nothing. Now in order to get what I would categorize as basic human treatment he has to file a complaint and be subject to retribution by prison administration and guards. This is outrageous. If we treated a dog in this way someone would go to jail.

As for justice: it is a difficult concept to enact. It's subjective on it's own terms. Every day similarly situated criminals are adjudicated in different manners with different outcomes. We strive for justice to be "blind", but as it's practiced it is not blind at all. I have a feeling that one reason there is so much outrage re: this guy is he's Libyan. If he were Irish and had bombed London and they let him out would there be as much outrage? I don't know for sure, my guess is not. Why is that?

Admittedly, one issue with English Common Law is that it does not take into account the lasting effects of the wrong committed against them. I am very opposed to the cannonization of victims that seem to be happening lately. It's horrid when anyone dies, yet we lost our minds and spent billions on the families of the 9/11 victims. What do we do for the woman who loses her innocent child to gang violence (also terrorism, by the way), what about the 18,000 people who die each year due to lack of health care? Where is the outrage and rabid protection for them? It's not there because we've created a hierarchy of justice. I'm not opposed to helping victims families, but lets do it for all victims families. That will never happen because we value some more than we value others (we in the greater sense of we).

Where's the outrage at Israel for destroying family farms and Arab families only way to support themselves while building a wall that separates families from each other? And it's not a matter of Israel being able to "protect" themselves, it's the manner in which they're doing it.

It's easy to segment and compartmentalize an event, like 9/11 or Lockerbie , but true justice would demand that we treat all victims of terrorism with the same fervor. And we don't. And a lot of people are OK with that.

And now there's uproar over investigating alleged torturers and prosecuting them. Doesn't blind justice demand that we investigate, and if they have violated the law, prosecute them?

It's hardest to uphold "justice" when to do so would be against one's personal opinions or morals; but, unless we do that it's not justice, it's tyranny.

And you're the king of Scotland, I assume?

No, I'm someone who has the intelligence to know a sentence of "life without parole" means until one's life ends, not until somebody decides that said convict should be let go for some touchy-feely reason that is totally unacceptable and ridiculous.

ROFLMAO

Actually King James VI of Scotland - also King James I of England, the first to rule both; as well as officially the king of France - was a pretty intelligent guy for royalty. He wrote several books. And was probably not bad looking if you like long-nosed gingers:



He also commisioned and funded the most popular version of the Bible which bears his name. I happen to have a leather-bound edition of the red-letter version, as much for reference as for comfort; so he might well have been in favor of "forgiveness" of a sort.

To top it off the guy was probably at least bisexual; a subject of chatter in such exclusive surrounds as the Privy Council (how gay is that?)

He referred to hunky George Villier as his "wife" and called himself his "husband". Yet he was buried with a "male suitor" beside him.

That's a well developed response. However, from my pov there are a couple of problems with it. One....the appropriate response to "horrid" problems in prisons is to address/fix those problems. Not to use that as justification for letting the prisoner go free. And I am unclear....are the problems in the Scottish prison as bad as you have described in the federal prison (I assume you mean in the US)? For Scotland, which has such an idea of compassion that they would allow a murderer to go free, to have horrible care for its prisoners is implausible. Horrible care of prisoners is scandalous...if that's what's going on in Scotland, then shine a light on that. But it is not causal for release, imo.

Of course we have ideals that are not practiced fully. How could they be? When even given the best of motives different people place importance on different things. Compassion should be applied blindly as well, if you're going to frame it that way. But it's not being applied so. It's being applied narrowly in this case, without compassion others who were affected by this horrible attack. Does that mean you don't consider compassion when dealing with this (this type of situation)? Of course not. Any more than you stop considering justice even when you know you can't be perfectly just in every case.

And thus we are back to the same spot...."compassion" being defined as releasing a man who was convicted of murder is an arguable definition of compassion.

As far as your speculation regarding his being Libyan...and that somehow an Irish bomber being released would not provoke the same type of reaction.....Of course it would not for some. If they support the cause the Irish bomber was supposedly motivated by. I remember years ago hearing many passionate comments for the IRA's "efforts" in No. Ireland...not talking heads, but relatives and friends (Boston is the defacto capital of united Ireland, isn't it?). But I could never get it....to support someone who blew up people, including civilians, women and children, non-combatants....I could not see that as supportable. And when at least one of them went on a hunger fast in prison.....all I could think was "you've made your choice, now live with it. If this is how you want to end your life, then that's terrible, but society cannot be coerced like that."

Sorry, not sure how related that is, but using the Irish example took me back. What was this Libyan motivated by? Attacking us (us the US, us the UK, us the West, us the decadent infidels, us the Jew supporters)? Or are you trying to frame this as prejudice against Arabs/Muslims? Of course there is that. Just as there are those who will excuse because of the person's race/background (as examples see those who won't criticize Israel....see those who don't call for the Palestinians to get on with making peace). But for me those Irish "freedom fighters" earned their punishment...as did this man...and for it to be cancelled on misplaced compassionate grounds is galling.

Again, appreciate being able to dialogue on this. Thought provoking when we actually have to articulate what we think...and when we listen to someone else with a different point of view. So much "discussion" is not discussion, but hurling insults.

Haven't heard anything from Scotland's Minister of Compassion, who released the convicted murderer last August saying he would be dead within 3 months. Not only is the convicted murderer still living 11 months later, but might continuing living for years. Surprise, utter astonishment, complete amazement.

Wouldn't have commented on this, except for reading today that BP had lobbied for his release, and apparently the British government also viewed him as a tool for political/economic gain rather than a man convicted of mass murder.

Still makes my blood boil that he's free. And that the parties involved didn't have the balls to say they were doing it for political reasons.

Still waiting for my dictionary to update the definition of "compassion" to include a Scottish version: "releasing of convicted murders with no eye for appropriate justice; alt.: ignoring of justice in releasing murderers for political/economic gain, appropriate only when deceiving the public about motives by claiming it's only done in the name of compassion."

As awful as it may seem, this issue is a distraction - and a dangerous one at that. In the Countdown to Zero [nuclear weapons] the greatest impediment right now is the nation that is most likely to feel the need to use them and already has them - by all accounts from those who should know.

That nation is Israel.

By fooling ourselves that terrorism has little or nothing to do with that fact we are living in a fantasy that only a self-satisfied group of nations (commonly called the West) could afford. As long as other nations in the middle east are treated differently than Israel I don't think any of our self-righteous worries about the length or severity of one potential terrorist will matter. There are three nations currently on the precipice of a confrontation that could bring this to a head. Should all three of them succumb to authoritarian or fascist governments, that political cold war cold become hot in the worst way.

The first is Iran which has already fallen under fascism (not Islamofascism but the same old-fashioned type seen in Italy and the USA circa World War II). The second may be Israel - which is currently allowing a radical minority sect - the Haredi - to decide whether or not over 80% of the world's self-proclaimed Jews are actually Jewish. The third is the USA, which may oust the most humanitarian regime in its history to install the most regressive in 2012. Islam has forgotten the true meaning of jihad, Jews of the world have forgotten the true meaning of the word israel, and the USA the meaning of its enlightenment.

What's the term for a response being so off topic?

Start a thread entitled "my obession with Israel and nuclear weapons" or something equivalent. If you did, you'd not only show respect for the posters on topic, but you might also get responses to generate discussion (such as Israel most likely to use...ahead of North Korea? Pakistan?). Of course, if you're not interested in discussion, but instead only in spouting your formula, then you've done a good job of it here.

Save your arrogant judgment that we're being "self-righteous" for another time and place. It rings both off-key and manipulative. If you don't see how these things connect, perhaps it's because you have decided to obsess about nuclear weapons without seeing all the other things. Again, I remind you, Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia) have lived with and tolerated Israel's "alleged" nuclear weapons of deterence for decades.

This topic: Scotland's Idea of Compassion (to set a convicted mass murderer free). Please stay on it here and start a different thread for your theme.

And that's it for me on this with you.

For such a "christian" nation we're so hypocritical. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord......isn't that the quote?

People should just admit that this situation just brings up all the feelings of powerlessness to deal with random violence. And random violence is everywhere in our society. It's also much easier when it's a "foreign" issue as we're a nation of privilege and feel like we can tell everyone else how they "should" be.

It's funny too when another country has an opinion of how we should be doing something and then everyone is pissed off.

Many countries don't believe we should EVER use the death penalty....do we listen to them? Do we give a shit what they think...hardly...why should Scotland or Libya care what we think?

This is a totally inappropriate, and rather ridiculous, reply for this thread.




Your anti-USA posts are really growing old. I'm certainly not waving Old Glory in some patriotic fervor, but I'm not constantly complaining about or criticizing the U.S.

I'd suggest starting your own thread bemoaning how terrible the USA is. You'll have the pleasure of never seeing me post in agreement there.

oh please....self reflection is hatred of our country? I have different ideas than you and that makes me anti-USA....you think way too much of yourself.

SeaCraig...your responses reflect your hypocrisy. You reject the idea that we are a "christian" nation, yet you're trying to (mis)use that as a way of supressing the reaction to Scotland's decision to set a convicted murderer free. That's slick, but so's the oil in the gulf. Doesn't make it good to swim in.

You might have some valid points. Only you don't allow them to stand on their own merit. For example...the idea that this is in response to feeling powerless. I don't agree with you in this case for obvious reasons (he was caught, tried, convicted, and already in prison). But as an idea the idea that responses are fueled by the powerlessness people feel when attacked, assaulted, victimized, when nothing can restore the lives the murdered ended, has some merit.

But...what are you arguing?...that it's somehow a reflection of feeling powerless that makes so many people think he should still be serving his sentence? People haven't been saying he should (now) be executed, although many did think he deserved it. But....objecting to setting him free is not fired by vengence, as you continually try to frame it, but rather justice.

You're making an assertion that is essentially unsupportable and also irrelevant: that we don't care what others think about our using the death penalty. Many states don't employ the death penalty. Many Americans don't support the death penalty, although not because other countries say we shouldn't use it most likely, but because of their own beliefs and convictions.

But Scotland should care what we think because the vast majority of the victims on the plane were Americans. We are not "just" distant, opinionated, self-righteous observers. And Scotland claimed to do this on fair, compassionate grounds...all the while ignoring other components of fairness, compassion, and justice.

When we agreed not to press for extradition, Scotland made a commitment to fair justice. Holding themselves to the standard of fairness and justice, Scotland has failed. They said it was only on "compassionate" grounds, but now to hear that it wasn't only that, that politics, money, oil played their sordid parts, is like the cap coming off the well.

We do care and listen to others. We just had the President of Mexico come and tell us a law duly executed in one of our states was wrong and that we should overturn it (even though the law isn't as stringent as laws on the books in his own country). Or did you miss that performance, supported by the President of the United States and many who don't mind the opinions of foreigners and foreign goverments when they are in line with their own thoughts?

But...honestly...SeaCraig....your responses consistently seem to be designed to shut down discussion, debate, and opinions that don't line up with yours. Go back and read how you frame it..."people should admit"..."everyone"..."everyone is pissed off", etc. Continually framing that this is about vengeance rather than justice.

And then what are you arguing? That a convicted murderer should have been set free, and that everyone else should shut up because we do things (some) other people in the world don't agree with? Is it only if we were to do everything the way that you think before we would be able to express any opinions or reactions to things that happen in other countries?
So no speaking out about the Ugandan bill to make homosexuality (or acts) punishable by death?
No speaking out on using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in other countries?
No speaking out about the Iranian woman being stoned to death for adultery?
No opinions allowed from here about banning the burqa in France, minarets in Switzerland, or churches or Bibles in Saudi Arabia?

Be careful about trying to shut down debate and ideas, even when you don't agree with them. Or to make your case for the US being so awful we should just shut up about any and everything until we fix everything here.

It's not self-reflection; it's incessant complaining and criticism.

I guess if my point was to shut down debate I'm not very good at it.

My point is that the fact that there is little or nothing we can really do about the situation touches on the overall powerlessness we feel as a society when it comes to violence.

I don't believe we (the US) should feel like we can meddle and interfere in every government around the world. First, it's extremely self-centered and arrogant to think that we have the answer for everyone. Second, it gets us into situations which are unproductive and costly...see Iraq and Afghanistan. We're being blinded by the US is the greatest rhetoric that blind patriots spout. We are great in many ways and flawed in others. It shortsighted and harmful to be unwilling to examine and discuss our flaws in an attempt to repair them. The only thing we're number one in anymore is the military. Not in education, happiness, security, prosperity or any other measured category. And the unwillingness to examine that fact may be the beginning or our demise.

Either we believe that countries are sovereign or we don't. I'm talking about official government policy. This is where the whole Scotland thing is headed...a brouhaha between nations. If a British Airways plane were attacked in the US do you think we'd stand for Britain telling us how to investigate and prosecute that attack. Not for one minute. Why should we (US) feel that we have that right with them?

As far as people's individual views, that's really none of my business. People, myself included, should post what and how they're feeling about an issue. But there's a difference in having an opinion on an issue and advocating that our government take some sort of action. I can disagree with a person's position and do my best to persuade them otherwise, but when it comes to government action I, as all citizen's do, have a theoretical larger voice.

I don't believe any country should use religion as a basis for law. I don't think government should give a shit about religion. You may disagree. Either way I don't believe we should use the power of the US to effect either belief here or in any other country.

I don't buy anything made in Israel, Iran, Pakistan or any other country that uses religion as a cover for oppression. That's part of how I see it. If I didn't agree with Scotland, and I agree with their process, the execution may be flawed and that would seem to deserve some scrutiny, then I'd add them to the list. But I don't get to to tell the Scottish people how to run their government unless I'm willing to have them tell us how to run ours. Just a little rule I live by.


At least you were honest enough to not argue with the second half of the post

Both British PM David Cameron and Barack Obama have condemned the release of the Libyan bomber by the Scottish gov't. Cameron goes on to say that the release had nothing to do with lobbying by BP to win Libyan oil concessions.

I ignored it.

silence is akin to ratification

very pithy

Umpires often have to be.

No, that's not your point (bold). That's your cover story. Your point follows (in italics)...You have used this a means to object to US policy and actions.

But the responses to Scotland's decision to free a convicted murderer did not come because we, the US, arrogantly thinks we should tell Scotland how to do things. The responses came because we, individual people, believe justice was not served.

You can argue, as you do so often, that US governmental policy and actions are wrong, shouldn't be done, etc. And that's perfectly legitimate and appropriate. But....come on man....quit distorting this topic by painting those who don't think Scotland has been compassionate, let alone just, as strictly trying to impose US governmental control and ways on the rest of the world.

I didn't react and say "my government should tell them what to do". I reacted from the same place that I reacted when I heard Uganda was considering a law to make homosexuality and activity punishable by death. Did you keep your silence on that? Did you react by saying "that's terrible". Or did you react by saying "my government should tell Uganda to do it differently." Or did you react by saying "I can't have an opinion, but need to let other countries decide what they think is right and just accept it."

Several years ago when France, a model of secularism, banned Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to school, did you have an opinion? React? Say "how is it freedom when they can't dress with a headscarf because the government decides to forbid it?...or something like that" Did you wonder why ruthlessly secular France engages in such restrictions (headscarves, yarmulkas, cross necklaces)? Is your reaction to any of that strictly about getting the US government involved? Or do you have any reaction as a person that isn't automatically tied to having the US impose itself elsewhere? If no to any reactions, I wonder. If yes, then I wonder why you don't give others room to react as thinking people, rather than as somehow trying to impose America on the rest of the world.

I haven't thought the US government should get involved. I have thought Scotland should have done it right in the first place. Which they failed to do. 270 murdered. The convicted murder free.

What's really disturbing to me is the level of privilege Americans feel to meddle in other country's business. Of course I have opinions on what happens in other countries. I don't begrudge you or anyone else their opinion. What I've seen with the Scotland debate ....maybe not so much you, but from many who have a similar view to you.... is that somehow President Obama should say, or do something. And I disagree.

When you end with he killed and was convicted what you leave off is the last, legislated, part of the puzzle. Scotland decided to release certain prisoners...murderers included...under certain circumstances. I feel I have to respect their democratic process. Just like I'd like our democratic process respected...no matter how much I believe it could use some improvement.

I really think these issues are a big distraction. They touch a visceral wounded nerve and get people all puffed up about something they have no control over. That's why the right wing tends to support these types of discussions. Wouldn't it be something if we were all so pissed off about how Wall Street stole trillions of dollars from citizens AND the government and yet we can't pass regulation to really stop it? Or just as pissed about all the money spent on useless wars? Ones that many learned people believe we can't win?

But no, we want to tell Scotland how to manage their justice system. How about that level of interest in our system....the highest level of incarceration in the world! Let's get in a snit about that. Our government imprisons more of its citizens per capita than any other country IN THE WORLD. That's something to get worked up about.

You know, I do get your point. The injustice of so many on Wall Street making so much money at the expense of investors, taxpayers, and citizens....and about the incarcaration rates in the US...and about ....the list goes on.

But using those to buttress your point is offputting, to say the least. Really, it's a misue. You are trying to shut down the response to this particular situation by saying it's distracting from the big issues, from things we should be upset about, etc. Who are you to decide that for everyone?

For some, this issue matters because justice matters. The underlying principle is involved, so that makes it not a one and done specific issue for many, but one of principle.

Don't know the pressure you seem to be hearing on Obama to address this. Doesn't seem to matter for two reasons: 1) Scotland made its decision, released the conviced murderer a year ago, and any pressure for Obama now would be meaningless. 2) Secretary of State Clinton, representing the US last year when it happened, did speak about it, did object to it. If some are using this as a means to pressure Obama politically...not for this issue of injustice but for current political gain...then I have no use for that (either).

So...again, we're back to the stench of this. Does Scotland actually release each and every convicted murderer when said murderer is determined to be dying? If so, then Scotland is at least being consistent. However..........I didn't hear that last year and still haven't heard it with the renewed attention to this.

Do all convicted murderers serving life sentences without parole get released in Scotland? Or is it only some, as I understood throughout this...which made it much more difficult to swallow, given the injustice perpetrated against the average, common people suffering at the hands of this murderer. Who seems to have been released to gain political and economic points with his sponsoring country. Naked, harsh, cold, political gain at the expense of justice. If you can't get upset about that injustice, then your concern for common people and their money sounds a little hollow.

I welcome any contribution that you or anyone else makes to any thread that I or anyone else makes on this site.

As for what shall be allowed to be posted or not, I leave that to the monitors.