Vande Mataram

Monday, August 24, 2009

Unlocking of Lockerbie criminal - Compassion for what?

“Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill.” - William Shakespeare.
We see tears, shrill and whine over Scottish justice minister's decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the criminal convicted of bombing the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie killing 272 people, on compassionate grounds. This leaves every sane mind with a question whether we need the provision in the laws to release criminals of such a grave nature on compassionate grounds. Megrahi was accorded a hero's welcome in Libya, as if he has done something extraordinarily good for his nation or for the world and had been jailed for a cause. Criminals who have the potential to be symbolized for recruits and trainees at the terror camps don't deserve to be released on any grounds.

Megrahi had killed people who hadn't chosen to die over the skies of Lockerbie. The people were common men women and children, who were going home or away from home for reasons personal, business and intimate. They were not allowed to live a life of their choice. They were killed at the behest of Col.Gadhaffi, by Megrahi and gang, to show to the world that they are someone that the world has to be afraid of. Releasing him on compassionate grounds is not what justice is, be it the system of whichever country. Earl Warren rightly said,"It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive".

The argument supporting his release is not based on strong legal or judicial grounds. People argue that the American bombers of Iranian civilian airplane were not punished, so none should question the release of Megrahi. American bombing of civilian aircraft is a different case. People concerned should have approached the International Court of Justice or the UNO for dealing with that crime. It is not wise to compare two crimes and justify one. Crime is a crime and it deserves punishment through a thorough legal system.

Megrahi killed people and that is a fact. If terrorists wanted to show “compassion” they wouldn’t have become terrorists. Therefore showing compassion to them is criminal. The abettor of the Pan Am attack is terminally ill and would like to die in peace. Let him do it in the confines of a prison cell. If that Megrahi had repented for the killings he had abetted and took part in, and atleast felt bad for the common people whom he killed under the orders of one who wanted to frighten someone else for some reason the dead were not allowed to comment or even think upon, then his release on compassionate grounds to have him a death at the place of his choice would have some credibility. Peace has nothing to do with the place you live, it is a state of mind.

If people have the maturity to live life peacefully with a calm mind, even petty crimes would not happen. Until then, we need to have mercy only for the victims and not for criminals, especially towards such brainwashed people who take pride in killing in the name GOD in a form they worship. Megrahi should not have been released. Scotsmen have erred in judgment. This is a costly error. This has already cost 272 human lives and may cost more because of the agony and angst.

Englishmen are accused of having vested trade interests in this crime of release. If that is proved we have to hail Sir. Winston Churchill for telling the truth about the mentality of his people so publicly. He said,“
The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.” Englishmen seem to be strong now and Americans are weaker. If this release is based on compassion, is it a compassion for justice or compassion for commerce?

1 comment:

  1. Hi, followed this link from the Guardian website.

    Just 2 quick points. There were 270 people who died in the tragedy, 243 passengers, 16 crew and 11 on the ground.

    Your claim that Meghari's guilt is a fact has been questioned from the time of the original trial. More recently the Scottish Criminal Crimes Review Commission found serious doubts about the prosecution's case. This after an investigation over more than three years.