Immoral, Unthinkable and Unforgivable

"Searched the on-line archives of the Jerusalem Post (advanced search, Horovitz and August 20 to August 22, 2009. Still nothing and nothing via Google."

Posted by: ccnl1 | August 31, 2009 4:29 PM

Perhaps try this link...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1249418663325

...or simply search for the article title (something like 3,000 results come back off Google). The article is from Aug. 20, 2009. Furthermore, it is hardly the only analysis to raise these issues.

Or, if you like, just keep your head in the sand.

Searched the on-line archives of the Jerusalem Post (advanced search, Horovitz and August 20 to August 22, 2009. Still nothing and nothing via Google.

And the article is from August 20

I think fitzwarryne meant David Horovitz, not David Horovite.

Hmmm, just searched the on-line archives of the Jerusalem Post and did not find any story entitled 'Analysis: Injustice over Lockerbie' or an author named David Horovite.

It is a great pity David Wolpe did not read the Jerusalem Post article 'Analysis: Injustice over Lockerbie' written by David Horovite. Their position is that al-Megrahi was not involved in this matter but was found guilty as the result of paid false statements, tampered evidence and an arbitary and illogical decision.

On 28 June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred. The Commission granted al-Megrahi leave to appeal against his Lockerbie bombing conviction on six separate grounds. The Commission found that all the evidence used to obtain the conviction against al-Megrahi was tainted.

Unfortunately al-Megrahi would have died before an appeal could hear all the new evidence establishing his innocence.

Therefore, the decision to release him now on compassionate grounds is legal and moral. However a full enquiry should be held in place of the appeal which will now not take place. There is a very high probability al-Megrahi will be found not guilty posthumously.

It is a great pity David Wolpe did not read the Jerusalem Post article 'Analysis: Injustice over Lockerbie' written by David Horovite. Their position is that al-Megrahi was not involved in this matter but was found guilty as the result of paid false statements, tampered evidence and an arbitary and illogical decision.

On 28 June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred. The Commission granted al-Megrahi leave to appeal against his Lockerbie bombing conviction on six separate grounds. The Commission found that all the evidence used to obtain the conviction against al-Megrahi was tainted.

Unfortunately al-Megrahi would have died before an appeal could hear all the new evidence establishing his innocence.

Therefore, the decision to release him now on compassionate grounds is legal and moral. However a full enquiry should be held in place of the appeal which will now not take place. There is a very high probability al-Megrahi will be found not guilty posthumously.

One has just to go down the list of

"commenters" and find the Jewish ones, to find vitrol and screaming. Eye for Eye, the more savage the better. Forgive?
Strive for pease? Right.

It was ever so, and no surprise at all.

Libya is a backward Moslem country as demonstrated by this man's koranic slaughter of non-Islamics and his countrymen's saluting him for it. Time to build some added walls to isolate these lunatics!!!

"This is...a callous blow to the families who will everlastingly grieve the loss of those whom they loved...Surely they are the ones who deserve compassion."

Once again, the whole point of justice and punishment is being subverted by an obsession with "survivors' rights."

When a murderer is sentenced, it is not done to give the survivors a sense of personal justice and revenge. It is done so that the criminal will pay his debt to society according to the laws of that society. It is the community at large that prosecutes him, under the assumption that his acts have offended the society of which he is a member. His conviction and punishment are meant to redress those offenses against this society.

In recent decades, however, we have witnessed the growth of a notion that survivors are somehow entitled to particular legal outcomes to make up for their loss, grief, and sadness. In actuality, they are bystanders, but the courts, through their the dubious mechanism of "victim impact statements" (which originally applied only to people who had survived actual attacks, not to people merely related to murder victims), have awarded these people their own "victim" status and invited them to share in the processing of justice. This has lead to a widespread belief that the barometer for determining whether justice has been served is whether the feelings and wishes of the victim's family have seen satisfied...whether they have achieved "closure."

Now, in the case at hand, private citizens whose relatives died in the hijacking are being consulted and quoted by the media, effectively elevating them to the status of credible social commentators on the "justice" of freeing a dying felon for compassionate reasons. In fact, they have no place in this issue. By now, their grief must necessarily be private and further search for the mythical "closure" -- which extensive research has revealed cannot be gained from the perpetrator's death -- put aside.

To put it simply, the decision is not about them.

Evil keeps gaining ground. We have water and love falls into place. Better Post.
http://twitpic.com/f9sht

"Forgiveness to someone who does not repent is an incitement to evil."

So does that mean when Christ forgave those who were crucifying him, he was inciting them to continue?

Who can tell whether this apparent act of mercy will not result in a radical change in this man--yet to be seen? Maybe we are judging the play before the first act is even complete.

"I'm disgusted at the decision; unsurprised but filled with fury at the reception, and bewildered that anyone could seriously imagine that this degenerate murderer deserves anything other than a bare, solitary cell until his dying day."

Isn't that what we deserved until God showed us mercy?

Personally, I believe he should have died in prison because that is what he deserves for his crimes. But I will not argue that he may benefit from an act of mercy because mercy is not about the one receiving it, but about the one giving it.

Maybe Scotland has risen to a higher plane of morality; maybe they acted naively, I do not know.