Let Lockerbie Bomber Die in Jail
The AFP reports:
Libya plans to seek the extradition of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi who is serving a life term in Scotland and suffering from terminal cancer, a source close to the case told AFP on Monday.
“Libya and Britain are due to exchange ratified extradition documents at the end of April, and after that Libya will officially submit a request for Abdelbaset Megrahi’s extradition,” the source said on condition of anonymity.
This would allow Megrahi “to continue his sentence in a Libyan prison, particularly since he is suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and has only a few weeks left to live,” the source added.
In May 2007, Libya and Britain signed a protocol agreement on the transfer of prisoners.
Megrahi is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years after being convicted of downing a transatlantic US airliner over the Scottish village of Lockerbie in 1988, killing 270 people.
He is reportedly suffering from prostate cancer, which is good news for all those who believe that this man should suffer for his crimes.
Many will undoubtedly argue that he has to be allowed to spend his last weeks or days in freedom. I am not one of them. This man is a terrorist. “A life sentence” means just that: you stay in jail until you die. Whether you die from a sickness or die a natural death is of no consequence. Megrahi should have thought about that before he decided to kill 270 innocent people.
And that is exactly why Britain should not extradite him to Libya. It seems likely to me that Libya will let the man die in freedom, possibly celebrated as a hero by many Libyans.
No extradition, let the man sit out his sentence until the day he dies.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
