-9 months to liveFollow

I'm willing to take the chance the doctor's wrong, myself, as evidently was the judge.

"The public" had nothing to do with the decision to release him. The decision was taken by the Scottish government. Maybe you should preach to them.

My opinion would have been the same if the prognosis was less than a year instead of 3 months. That's also disregarding the fact that he was probably innocent.

From your own quote:

The public allowed it because they were told that the man only had 3 months to live. If the public (either in the US or in the UK) had been told that this guy could live 10 more years with proper treatment, do you think he would have been released? Don't underestimate the degree to which public pressure will affect decisions like this. And in this case, it appears as though the public was sold a story designed to get them to allow something they otherwise would not.



And now we get to the truth. You think he might have been innocent, so you're ok with a lie being perpetrated to get him out of his life sentence. Um... Why not appeal his conviction instead? The danger with this is what happens when the next time it *isn't* someone you think was innocent, but it's beneficial to the government to do so anyway (some kind of backroom deal, say)?

It's a moronic way to do this. And yeah. It's pretty transparent that there were elements in the UK who thought they'd unfairly convicted this guy, but they couldn't get enough support for an appeal or retry of the case, so they cooked up an especially gloomy prognosis in order to get it done anyway. And while I'm as much in favor of making sure people get fair trials as the next guy, this is the wrong way to do it.




And? I'm not sure what your point is here. So because some people thought he might be innocent, it's ok for the public to be mislead about his health? How the hell does that make sense?

Figured I'd put the video with the joke. Didn't hurt to get the +1 too.

What lie?

So once again the compassion crowd types(tulip, nobby, samy, etc) allow a radical muslim mass murderer to roam free to talk about his triumph over western society. And somehow this doesn't hurt anyone.

Yes. It's completely our fault that the Scottish government let him go home.

Sometimes people get better/live longer even though doctors think they won't? I believe that was covered in the judges assessment.

Yeah. Here's the way I see it. Either the doctor was flat our lying, or he made one of the worst diagnoses in history. But let's just pretend it was an honest mistake for the sake of argument. What was "wrong" was that the politicians should not have pushed for release based on that diagnosis. And the people were wrong to have gone along with the idea that he should be released based on that diagnosis. And the judge was wrong to have allowed the release as well.


That's how many people "did something wrong". He was convicted of a crime and sentenced to live in prison. That usually means you serve in prison until the day you die. Whether that happens in 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years is irrelevant. The correct response to a diagnosis that he's only got three months to live should have been that he's only got three more months to serve on his sentence.

It's bad enough that he was released on those grounds, period. It's made infinitely worse given just how far off that diagnosis was.

Hey Gbaji. You wanna talk about Luis Posada Carriles?

I hand't realized that Belk, Sam and Nobbs were in control of the Scottish Government. That's awesome, congrats guys. Can you do something about haggis?

I swear with every name change you get more thick.

Oh those super compassionate guys at BP.


http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/bp-lobbied-brits-ahead-of-lockerbie-bomber-release/19555218