Allen Esterson wrote: "Mike, I presume you are referring to the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. He wasn't imposing his will on everyone involved, he came to decision that it was his responsibility to make on the basis of Scottish law and precedent."
Really? Besides the fact that I don't know how you could possibly know such a thing, I wonder why so many disagree with it then (including those in Scotland). If it was more or less a foregone conclusion based on "Scottish law and precedent" why do so many think he made the wrong decision? If it isn't a more or less foregone conclusion based on "Scottish law and precedent", then MacAskill IS imposing his will on everyone involved. I also disagree that it was his decision to make. Rather he has a responsibility to the public and to uphold the agreements arrived at that the terrorist will serve out a life sentence. He does NOT have free-will, free-wheeling, do as he thinks best authority. He is a public SERVANT, not a public master. All to often people like this, bent by their position of responsibility which they mentally twist into a position of power and authority come to believe that they ARE the law rather than merely a servant of it. --Mike On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Allen Esterson < allenester...@compuserve.com> wrote: > Sorry about my previous message. I'm using a friend's PC while savouring > the delights of the gently rolling hills of Herefordshire (on the border > with Wales), and something went wrong. > > On 21 August Rick Froman wrote: > >> Are there also cultures that think it is a good idea to welcome a mass >> murderer of innocent people home with the equivalent of a ticker tape >> parade when they had agreed that they would basically bring him in >> through the back door so he could compassionately spend his final days >> with his family? >> > > To which Marie Helweg-Larsen responded: > >> I think that US and British officials *requested* a backdoor welcome. >> Obviously that request was not granted. It is always shocking to >> > Americans > >> when other countries really don't care what the U.S. thinks or >> > requests. > > Interesting that when the Libyans ignored a perfectly reasonable request > from the British Prime Minister, and US Government, that a man found guilty > of the terrorist murder of some hundreds of people should not be given a > hero's welcome home (out of concern that terrorists should not celebrated, > and no doubt, for the feelings of the bereaved close relatives), that Marie > should still find a way of putting the Americans, and by implication the > British government, in the wrong rather than the Libyan regime. It is > particularly abhorrent that some in the welcoming crowd waved the Scottish > flag. One might stop to consider what must have been the feelings of > relatives of those that perished in Lockerbie on seeing their national flag > besmirched in that way. > > "Now there is something of a backlash at home too, largely because of the > jubilant scenes in Tripoli when Mr al-Megrahi got home with crowds waving > flags, including Scottish ones, and cheering." > http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/08/090821_lockerbie_nh_sl.shtml > > Downing Street has released the full text of the letter sent by Gordon > Brown to Gaddafi, in which the Prime Minister wished the Libyan leader a > happy Ramadan. The letter asked Gaddafi to 'act with sensitivity' over > Megrahi's homecoming: "A high-profile return would cause further unnecessary > pain for the families of the Lockerbie victims. It would also undermine > Libya's growing international reputation," Brown wrote. > > Chris Green wrote: > >> On this particular case, I was astonished (well, not really) to hear >> > many > >> Americans (and a few Brits) ask rhetorically why this man should be >> > shown > >> any compassion because (if he indeed did it) he didn't show any >> > compassion > >> to those who were killed on the flight. Well, because I would think >> > that we > >> *want* to show more compassion than a cold-blooded mass murderer >> (even to a mass murderer), that's why. It seems quite bizarre that we >> would let our own moral sense be dictated by the moral sense of >> > someone > >> we have declared to be immoral. >> > > I agree with Chris. But in the case of relatives of the victims of the > atrocity, I find myself unwilling to judge their anger at the decision by > the devolved Scottish government, as I have not lost a loved one under such > circumstances. > > Mike Smith wrote: > >> I think we also need to remember that it wasn't "Europeans" or "Brits" >> > or > >> the "Scots" who wanted the guy released. It was a single misguided >> > individual > >> imposing his will on everyone involved. Another case of Judicial fiat >> > by an > >> irresponsible individual who no doubt thinks he can create a better >> > world > >> by forcing his opinion on everyone else. >> > > Mike, I presume you are referring to the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny > MacAskill. He wasn't imposing his will on everyone involved, he came to > decision that it was his responsibility to make on the basis of Scottish law > and precedent. (I imagine that such an important decision having > international repercussions would not have been made without consultation > with the First Minister of the minority Scottish Nationalist > administration.) > > Apparently the three other main parties in the Scottish parliament have > expressed opposition to the decision: > > http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-is-free.5572026.jp > > Allen Esterson > Former Lecturer > Science Department > Southward College, London > www.esterson.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------- > From: Christopher D. Green <chri...@yorku.ca> > Subject: Re: The compassion of Braveheart > Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:15:51 -0400 > > Partly it is because American public opinion has become increasingly out > of step with the rest of the "developed" world on so many socio-political > issues (education, government, crime, guns, drugs, abortion, welfare, > health, etc.) over the past 30 years, that American attitudes are now just > expected to be fairly "alien" and increasingly irrelevant to parallel > debates in other countries. (This is not to say that American *should* line > up with everyone else, just that they *don't*, and haven't for such a long > time that it is regarded as a brute fact rather than a minor fluctuation on > which there will eventually be more accord.) > > On this particular case, I was astonished (well, not really) to hear many > Americans (and a few Brits) ask rhetorically why this man should be shown > any compassion because (if he indeed did it) he didn't show any compassion > to those who were killed on the flight. Well, because I would think that we > *want* to show more compassion than a cold-blooded mass murderer (even to a > mass murderer), that's why. It seems quite bizarre that we would let our own > moral sense be dictated by the moral sense of someone we have declared to be > immoral. > > Regards, > Chris Green > York U. > Toronto > --------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Rick Froman <rfro...@jbu.edu> > Subject: RE: The compassion of Braveheart > Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:58:59 -0500 > > Are there also cultures that think it is a good idea to welcome a mass > murderer > of innocent people home with the equivalent of a ticker tape parade when > they > had agreed that they would basically bring him in through the back door so > he > could compassionately spend his final days with his family? > > Rick > > Dr. Rick Froman > rfro...@jbu.edu<mailto:rfro...@jbu.edu> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > From: Helweg-Larsen, Marie <helw...@dickinson.edu> > Subject: RE: The compassion of Braveheart > Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:31:48 -0400 > > I think that US and British officials *requested* a backdoor welcome. > Obviously > that request was not granted. > It is always shocking to Americans when other countries really don't care > what > the U.S. thinks or requests. > Marie > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > From: Michael Smith <tipsl...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: The compassion of Braveheart > Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:03:19 -0600 > > I think we also need to remember that it wasn't "Europeans" or "Brits" or > the "Scots" who wanted the guy released. It was a single misguided > individual imposing his will on everyone involved. Another case of Judicial > fiat by an irresponsible individual who no doubt thinks he can create a > better world by forcing his opinion on everyone else. > > --Mike > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
