The images from Libya are horrifying: Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted for the bombing of Pan Am 103, has returned home to a hero's welcome. Since al-Megrahi is dying of prostate cancer, a Scottish judge released him on "compassionate" grounds.
The United States strenuously objected to al-Megrahi's release. 189 Americans died on Pan Am 103, but the United States is powerless to stop the release, since al-Megrahi was prosecuted and jailed in Scotland. The United States stands by helplessly as one of the world's most vicious terrorists is allowed to die in the comfort of his own home.
The images of al-Megrahi's triumphant return to Libya are particularly galling since the vast majority of al-Megrahi's victims were American nationals. If al-Megrahi had been tried, convicted, and jailed in the United States, he would die where he belongs: in a jail cell.
Moreover, if Congress does not relent on its refusal to allow the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the U.S., we may well see terrorists who have killed Americans released to heroes' welcomes in the future.
After President Obama pledged to shut down Guantanamo, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the transfer of any ex-Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. mainland. As a result, the Obama administration is now feverishly negotiating with foreign countries to take Guantanamo detainees. Once these detainees are transferred, the United States will lose control over them. Even if some are convicted for crimes against Americans, we will have no say as to their sentences, paroles, or future "compassionate release."
There may well be innocent men on Guantanamo. We thus need a full and fair process to evaluate their respective guilt, and thereby release the innocent. However, Guantanamo also likely holds terrorists who helped plan and carry out attacks against Americans.
If these men are convicted in a full and fair proceeding, they will face significant jail sentences, just like al-Megrahi. These sentences should be served in the United States, not overseas.
If instead all Guantanamo detainees are sent abroad, the United States will lose jurisdiction over them. In a few years, for example, self-proclaimed 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed could be released by a foreign nation on "compassionate" grounds. Moving Gitmo detainees abroad is an easy course of action now, but it has troubling long-term consequences: the loss of U.S. control over the punishment of those detainees who, after due process, are convicted of killing Americans.
In fairness, federal law allows for compassionate release. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) allows for early release when "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant." The November 2007 Federal Sentencing Guidelines defined these reasons as including "terminal illness," such as al-Megrahi's. However, such releases in practice are granted rarely, and even less frequently for violent crimes.
Scotland's release of al-Megrahi is wrong at every level. Congress should learn from this troubling incident, and allow the President to jail foreign terrorists in the United States. Guantanamo should be closed, but the solution is not to outsource to other nations the punishment of convicted terrorists. After a fair trial, those who have killed Americans should be punished by the American government.
Harry Shearer: The Word Not Spoken: Bagram
When Fox staged a special Veterans Day version of its NFL pregame show at Bagram AF Base last Sunday, they failed to mention one interesting fact about Bagram: It's the site of America's other Gitmo.
First of all, forgiving someone is not grounds for their release. You might forgive someone but still believe they should be imprisoned or else we would be releasing Charles Manson and other dangerous people. And the public doesn't forgive a person, individuals do.
Second, this action is so obviously vain and self-aggrandizing that it can't possibly be viewed as Christian unless you forget Jesus' admonition against the hypocrites who pray in public. Does anyone honestly believe that this action has softened the heart of this man and he has forgiven himself? Of course not because he hasn't even acknowledged that he's guilty of a crime.
It is also ridiculous to believe that this will curry favor with the Muslim world. Did the release of the two journalists make us view NK any differently? Or the release of the british sailors by Iran? Of course not, it just made them look foolish, and their legal systems completely arbitrary.
12:52am
Sunny Isles Beach, FL
"Squeaky" Fromme was recently released from prison here in the USA even though she attempted to assasinate President Ford.
So how can we criticize Scottish law?
1. Obama 2. the foreign countries who accepted and released them or 3. ourselves. This is one matter which cannot be laid at Obama's doorstep. The American people has spoken when their mouth pieces in Congress and Senate stated that they do not want the detainees on US soil.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-carmichael/lockerbie-and-kafkas-laby_b_264483.html
It will be the poor saps who were sold into bondage by unscrupulous neighbors and those we have no case against who will be relocated to other countries.
This is a policy that was pursued by the Bush administration, unsuccessfully, and has been the goal for quite some time.
This hysteria about "American Killers" needs to be squashed like the bug it is, just more town hall teabagger nonsense to be put down.
I find it strange that prisoners that we imprisoned and tortured are now considered to dangerous to be held are prosecuted on US soil. What exactly are we afraid of? Are they now more dangerous than they were when we first captured them? And this world power can't secure less than 300 prisoners on it's own soil, but we can wage wars throughout the world? Makes no sense.
"There have been no Gitmo detainees that have been convicted in a court of law" Period. The government can't find any witnesses, will not allow their defense lawyers access to information or testimony. The detainees have been abused, tortured and arrested without cause because there is no actual "war". They release a few here and again because of these silly legal statutes that say the innocent are allowed their freedom.
That pretty much makes the rest of your arguments sound as silly as Bill O'Reilly on a bender with the camera on. If you do not care about facts, label the work as the appropriate type of fiction that it is.
And why for the sake of argument, are you concerned about what a Scottish court does for a Libyan national prisoner? The unbelievable arrogance gives the whole room a certain bouquet. I like how you argue for and against your pet issue at the same time and come to no question or conclusion.
Yale must have suffered greatly since they allowed people to pay for an education not earned. You are proof that they do not care. GW Bush was a prime example of no "idiot" left behind.
Yes, I'm afraid that's what happens when someone is tried an sentenced under the laws of a continent that is at least trying to be civilized.
I'm sorry, you do not just have a problem with a Scottish minister, and most probably not only with Scottish law, but with the entire European consensus on judicial punishment, certainly with the general European understanding of human rights, anada again very likely with positive European human rights law. As the latter supersedes national law, it is highly questionable whether anyone in the UK had the discretion not to release a terminally ill prisoner. That is standard practice on this side of the pond.
We do not dehumanize our prisoners, even if they have commited crimes that attempt to dehumanize their victims.
Only the USA persists in its barbarous equation of justice with revenge. The outraged howling I've been seeing in the TV is an utter disgrace to your nation and makes a bad joke of every time you use the words freedom or dignity. Because the USA is a state whose most august legal authorities reserve the right to remove the last ounce of freedom or dignity a human being might have.
Abolish the death penalty and then we can talk. But don't come preaching to Europeans before you've done that piece of homework.
Secondly, you don't even know whether I am in the part if Europe that enjoyed being west of the Iron Curtain. I might be in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Rumania or Bulgaria. That's 11 countries who were not subject to the morally softening forces you mention, but still none of them has the death penalty.
As to Islamic values, I'm just not paranoid about 4% of the population, of whom a small fraction may have a bad attitude, being a threat to our way of life. A few nutcases may kill people, but tell me a period in history that didn't have a few nutcases who killed people.
An argument might be able to be made that this "compassionate" gesture may sway the views of some Muslim nations, but more than likely it makes the West in general look week and foolish. This scum was returned to a country which executes people for non-violent crimes.
For a healthy person, that certainly delays their release, but not for ever; look into the RAF people in Germany; a few of them got out after 24 years. And there were one or two releases on health grounds.
"Life" has not meant "until you die" in most European countries for a long time. As it says in the articles, Megrahi's sentence was supposed to be at least 27 years.
I don't think international politics should be taken into account in judicial decisions.
Let Michigan accept this waste and be responsible for all the problems that come with them. Keep them out of my state however. Michigan can become a dumping ground for terror.
Justice is often in the eye of the beholder.
I don't have any idea what constitutes a hero any longer. Much like I have no idea what a terrorist is.
Much like Ms England has paid the price for the torture policies of the Bush cabal, this man has paid the price for the chickenhawks in his own country.
you sure been rilin' them up good, jimmy boy.
And finally, if its immoral to keep them locked up in GITMO, why is it more moral to keep them locked up within the USA? How does movement to a less secure location within the USA improve the situation?
"At GITMO they surrounded by oceans of water, in USA they could disappear into the country side after a succesful breakout. "- There has never been a succesful breakout from our supermax prisons. So you scenario is highly unlikely
if its immoral to keep them locked up in GITMO, why is it more moral to keep them locked up within the USA? - You are correct in that the location isn't the main issue. If there is not clear legal framework, and humane prisoner treatment it doesn't matter where the prisoners are kept. Unfortunately Gitmo has a terrible reputation overseas and is used as a terrorist recruiting tool.
The flaw in that statement is the assumption that they deserve representation in our judicial system. they do not.
The prisoners have not committed any federal crimes. They are non uniformed combatants captured on the battlefield. As such it is LEGAL for the united states to hold them until the cessation of hostilities. It is their misfortune that they chose to start a war in which it will be extremely difficult for the United States to determine when hostilities have ceased. Having initiated combat against us, they should have to live with the unpleasant consequences.
"- There has never been a succesful breakout from our supermax prisons. So you scenario is highly unlikely. Whether its unlikely or not it can't be argued that its more secure to house them in our country than on an island base outside the country.
Unfortunately Gitmo has a terrible reputation overseas and is used as a terrorist recruiting tool. And you don't think that once they are moved to a supermax prison in the USA the detainees won't make the same accusations against the new facility as they did in GITMO? GITMO got its bad repuation due to "journalists" taking the detainees accusations at face value and reporting them as fact. Ignoring the fact the AL Quaedas training manual instructs its members to accuse the enemy of human rights violations in order to raise sympathy for the terrorists agenda.
Second, no one has EVER escaped from a Federal Supermax prison-EVER! Do you really think these guys are more intelligent and resourceful than Ted Kuzinski?
In effect, we would not be able to convict them of anything due the way in which they were captured (the "evidence" would be deemed inadmissable in court) and would be forced to let them go. Thats no way to fight a war.
So yes to prevent the insanity of trying enemy soldiers in US courts of laws he intelligently chose to keep them out of the jurisdiction of our court system.
We also understand that there are circumstances for compassionate release and these seem to mirror those that the Scottish Secretary for Justice has applied in his decision: a terminal illness is "extraordinary and compelling". There is little point in having such provisions if they are not to be used as there is little point in a Geneva Convention that is ignored.
We find the actions of al-Megrahi distasteful and offensive, as most people do, but one of the hallmarks of a civilised country is that when others debase themselves, we can rise above the morass: a civilised country should not seek extra-judicial solutions, which implies justice and mercy above revenge.
THink about it. if there are advantages to ignoring the rules of civilized behavior (and there are) and no disadvantages, then why should anyone rationally follow the rules of civilized behavior?
Those who break those rules must be treated harshly in order to prevent the pool of barbarians from growing.
an example. Back in the days of sailed boats. Captured Pirates were routinely hung at sea without benefit of a trial. They COULD have been put in the ships brig and taken back to civilization for trial and sentencing. They were not, because people back then understood that you could not treat civilly those who behave uncivilly and expect to get anything but more uncivil behavior.
one could also say that revenge is a capitulation to the inferior morality of the offender.
why should a civilized society descend to the moral level of terrorists?
it's not, you know, as though we in Europe didn't know what crimes against humanity are like. remember we spent a large part of the last century going through what many historians call the second thirty-year war. the crimes that weren't done by Europeans to Europeans in the course of the Imperialism, Fascism, Nazism and Communism aren't worth knowing about.
It's also not as though we didn't know what it's like to live with murderers walking free. look at ireland, where men who bombed and shot thousands are free, as part of the peace process. it's not nice for their former victims, but most of them accept it, because the process really has brought peace.
no, it's because we're making an attempt to be more civilized than we used to be, and more so than the sum who would like to drag us back into the pit we only just climbed out of a few decades ago.