Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi discharged from hospital

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

He murdered over a hundred people.

He murdered a friend of mine.

You don't see it as a big deal, huh?

Click to expand...

Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation as well as punishment, but at some point you can't really argue that people CAN be rehabilitated.

Clearly, we need to give this guy more cancer. He owes us death by cancer, damnit. Can we remove cancer via surgery from one person and place it inside him? Does that work?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Terrorists can never become productive citizens. Remove them from society by means of a short rope and a long drop.

Click to expand...

Actually in several islamic societies terrorists have been rehabilitated and re-educated with Islamic schooling.

I got an Islamic schoolin' yo.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

He murdered over a hundred people.

He murdered a friend of mine.

You don't see it as a big deal, huh?

Click to expand...

Keep him in prison until we know he won't commit more crimes. If he won't, then why keep him there? Yeah, it sucks, but I'd rather leave punishment to a more infallible judge, if you get my drift.

phattonez said:

Keep him in prison until we know he won't commit more crimes. If he won't, then why keep him there? Yeah, it sucks, but I'd rather leave punishment to a more infallible judge, if you get my drift.

Click to expand...

No way in hell. Someone who plots and carrys out an attack that blows up an airliner full of totally innocent people should be either executed or locked up for life and NEVER released. One who commits mass murder has forfeited their privilege of living free in society.

OrlandoGringo said:

No way in hell. Someone who plots and carrys out an attack that blows up an airliner full of totally innocent people should be either executed or locked up for life and NEVER released. One who commits mass murder has forfeited their privilege of living free in society.

Click to expand...

So tell me, under the system I was talking about, when exactly would someone like this get released? When would we be sure that he wouldn't do it again and so could trust him in society? My contention is that it would almost always be that he would never get released.

Was not my post clear? One who commits mass murder should be either executed or imprisoned for life. They have forfeited their privilege of living free. They should never be released from secure custody.

Deuce said:

Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation as well as punishment, but at some point you can't really argue that people CAN be rehabilitated.

Click to expand...

don't waste time rehabilitating terrorists, just kill them.

You don't rehabilite rabid dogs, do you?

Deuce said:

Clearly, we need to give this guy more cancer. He owes us death by cancer, damnit. Can we remove cancer via surgery from one person and place it inside him? Does that work?

Click to expand...

Probably would.

I think this guy should be given leprosy.

phattonez said:

Keep him in prison until we know he won't commit more crimes.

Click to expand...

Agreed, once he's executed we'll know the terrorist can't commit any more crimes.

It's pointless to keep them in prison after they're executed.

phattonez said:

If he won't, then why keep him there? Yeah, it sucks, but I'd rather leave punishment to a more infallible judge, if you get my drift.

Click to expand...

I'm all for sending them onwards to get their 72 virgins as expeditiously as possible.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Agreed, once he's executed we'll know the terrorist can't commit any more crimes.

It's pointless to keep them in prison after they're executed.

I'm all for sending them onwards to get their 72 virgins as expeditiously as possible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't support the death penalty. It's self-defeating. If you support the death penalty and vote for it, and at least 1 innocent person is put to death, then you yourself are guilty of murder and should be put to death. Just separate those people from society who commit crimes. Let them associate with themselves. I don't see any reason why we need to give them anything. Just find a big area, fence and patrol it, and let them do what they will. I'd even be fine with them starting their own economy with exports and other trading. Just keep them away from us, that's all I want.

phattonez said:

Yeah, I can't support the death penalty. It's self-defeating. If you support the death penalty and vote for it, and at least 1 innocent person is put to death, then you yourself are guilty of murder and should be put to death. Just separate those people from society who commit crimes. Let them associate with themselves. I don't see any reason why we need to give them anything. Just find a big area, fence and patrol it, and let them do what they will. I'd even be fine with them starting their own economy with exports and other trading. Just keep them away from us, that's all I want.

Click to expand...

I've no problem with executing terrorists. It's not like they're humans.

Nope, my support of exeuting criminals convicted of certain crimes does not make me guilty if the system makes makes a mistake, no more than your lack of support makes you guilty when the system lets someone go who then murders again.

Murderers have done the unforgivable, and should pay an irrevocable price for their crimes.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

I've no problem with executing terrorists. It's not like they're humans.

Nope, my support of exeuting criminals convicted of certain crimes does not make me guilty if the system makes makes a mistake, no more than your lack of support makes you guilty when the system lets someone go who then murders again.

Murderers have done the unforgivable, and should pay an irrevocable price for their crimes.

Click to expand...

So then who does get the blame for putting the innocent man to death? The lawyers? The jury? The judge? Somebody has to die for killing an innocent man. Who gets the death penalty?

phattonez said:

So then who does get the blame for putting the innocent man to death? The lawyers? The jury? The judge? Somebody has to die for killing an innocent man. Who gets the death penalty?

Click to expand...

Yehudi.

Generally, if an innocent man is executed, it's the prosecutor's fault. No, no one has to die for a procedural failure, just like you don't execute the CEO of the American Rubber Ball company when a baby chokes. Accidents happen. Fix them, move on.

But don't pretend people don't deserve to die at the hands of the state.

Don't pretend that there are plenty of cases in which the guilt of the condemned is 100% certain and the chances of his being innocent are 0%.

Examine why a supposedly innocent man is condemned and fix the system to prevent that particular failure in the future, don't say that the obviously guilty shouldn't be punished thoroughly.

If a baby raper/killer leaves his DNA in his victim, with his victim's DNA in his car, with his tire impressions at the scene where the five year old's body is found, and his DNA is under her fingernails, then the case is shut before it was even opened, and that murdering scum should not spend decades on death row awaiting appeals. Fast track capital case appeals to end the travesty.

As for this particular terrorist, he was guilty of killing everyone on a jet airliner. His compassionate release from his cancer should have involved being stood up before a cannon firing frozen hams at Mach 3.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Generally, if an innocent man is executed, it's the prosecutor's fault. No, no one has to die for a procedural failure, just like you don't execute the CEO of the American Rubber Ball company when a baby chokes. Accidents happen. Fix them, move on.

Click to expand...

I see, so then the executor should die. That's fair enough. :roll:

But don't pretend people don't deserve to die at the hands of the state.

Click to expand...

I really believe it. The state is not above us, it is us, so they have no right to kill us as we don't have the right to kill each other.

Don't pretend that there are plenty of cases in which the guilt of the condemned is 100% certain and the chances of his being innocent are 0%.

Click to expand...

Those exist, but it also means nothing when you consider what I said above.

Examine why a supposedly innocent man is condemned and fix the system to prevent that particular failure in the future, don't say that the obviously guilty shouldn't be punished thoroughly.

Click to expand...

The only way to do that is to make sure we don't kill people because we will always make mistakes. People will always be framed, someone will always try to beat the system.

If a baby raper/killer leaves his DNA in his victim, with his victim's DNA in his car, with his tire impressions at the scene where the five year old's body is found, and his DNA is under her fingernails, then the case is shut before it was even opened, and that murdering scum should not spend decades on death row awaiting appeals. Fast track capital case appeals to end the travesty.

Click to expand...

If I'm the father, I have the baby's DNA under my fingernails, he has my DNA, his DNA will be in my car, and my DNA will probably be where the baby was found. What I'm trying to say here is that there will always be mistakes. Even in obvious cases you still have the problem of where to get the authority to kill.

As for this particular terrorist, he was guilty of killing everyone on a jet airliner. His compassionate release from his cancer should have involved being stood up before a cannon firing frozen hams at Mach 3.

Click to expand...

He'll get justice when he perishes.

phattonez said:

I see, so then the executor should die. That's fair enough. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I said once you strip away all the words an substitute your won.

phattonez said:

I really believe it. The state is not above us, it is us, so they have no right to kill us as we don't have the right to kill each other.

Click to expand...

We have the right to kill those that commit murder.

We grant the state the authority to act on our behalf in this matter because the state can be, should be, dispassionate.

phattonez said:

Those exist, but it also means nothing when you consider what I said above.

Click to expand...

I considered it, rejected it. I do have the right to kill those that kill my family. They've acknowledged that right by assuming they have the right to kill my family.

phattonez said:

The only way to do that is to make sure we don't kill people because we will always make mistakes. People will always be framed, someone will always try to beat the system.

Click to expand...

Nope, the case I mentioned was a specific case in whice Josa Avilla did kidnap, rape, and murder five year old Samantha Runnion. There's no valid reason this man should still be consuming oxygen.

phattonez said:

If I'm the father, I have the baby's DNA under my fingernails, he has my DNA, his DNA will be in my car, and my DNA will probably be where the baby was found. What I'm trying to say here is that there will always be mistakes.

Click to expand...

Give me a ****ing break.

phattonez said:

Even in obvious cases you still have the problem of where to get the authority to kill.

Click to expand...

The people give their authority to kill murderers to the state.

No problems at all.

The state is nothing more than an extension of the will of the people, with limits.

phattonez said:

He'll get justice when he perishes.

Click to expand...

There is no god, so he'll get to enjoy his full live secure in the knowledge that he's been well fed and cared for, and there's no other side to dish out the "justice".

So tell me, you get a group of people, say your family. They decide to make you in charge. You decide a son should be murdered. Are you justified?

Was/is he a terrorist? Al Megrahi had an appeal in process, new grounds had been found. It may have been more convenient to allow him to leave quietly than to have yet more CIA dirty linen displayed for all to see. Releasing him on health grounds, while he "voluntarily" dropped his appeal, avoids the embarrassment of his being found not guilty.

Manc Skipper said:

Was/is he a terrorist? Al Megrahi had an appeal in process, new grounds had been found. It may have been more convenient to allow him to leave quietly than to have yet more CIA dirty linen displayed for all to see. Releasing him on health grounds, while he "voluntarily" dropped his appeal, avoids the embarrassment of his being found not guilty.

Click to expand...

How is releasing a terrorist for a idiotic reason like compassionate grounds and what looks like for some oil deal better than letting the terrorist file an appeal?

jamesrage said:

How is releasing a terrorist for a idiotic reason like compassionate grounds and what looks like for some oil deal better than letting the terrorist file an appeal?

Click to expand...

Because the appeal could well have been successful.

****** Pan Am 103 was Qaddafi's Going Away present to Ronald Reagan. It occured on 12/21/88. Anybody believing that Qaddafi doesn't strike back is very foolish . The Bastard has Blood on his hands for 40 years. Some think Sweeedish PM Olaf Palme might have been taken out on his orders.

Manc Skipper said:

Was/is he a terrorist? Al Megrahi had an appeal in process, new grounds had been found. It may have been more convenient to allow him to leave quietly than to have yet more CIA dirty linen displayed for all to see. Releasing him on health grounds, while he "voluntarily" dropped his appeal, avoids the embarrassment of his being found not guilty.

Click to expand...

He was found guilty. Do you have evidence that clears him of the crime? If so, what is it?

Manc Skipper said:

Because the appeal could well have been successful.

Click to expand...

I think releasing someone on an appeal sounds a lot better than boo hoo we felt sorry for the poor wittle teworist and a oil deal with the terrorist home country. Because of that they made compassion synomous with the word "retard" or "fucken stupid."