Imagine a letter that berates a foreign government — a U.S. ally — for releasing a terrorist from his prison sentence on compassionate grounds. This letter decries the terrible impact the terrorist's act had on Americans, terming it a "heinous crime," asks the government in question to "oppose acts of terrorism," and respectfully demands that there be "no deviation this [the terrorist's] sentence."
It is not hard to imagine this letter because it really exists. What is considerably more difficult to imagine is that such a strong statement was put forth by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, also signed by Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy, and sharing its sense of consternation with the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill went ahead with the decision to release Pan Am flight 103 bomber Abdul al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, because al-Megrahi is terminally ill from prostate cancer. The British Government claims it had no say in the release of al-Megrahi, stating that it was purely a Scottish affair, though time will tell if Downing Street did have any impact on the decision, as furious MPs who opposed Megrahi's release are demanding an inquiry.
The Americans are also outraged at Scotland for releasing al-Megrahi from his prison sentence, and rightly so. Why should we show compassion toward Megrahi? If the Scots jailed bin Laden, would they also release him on "compassionate" grounds should he fall terminally ill? Whose sense of compassion are we more concerned about, Megrahi's or that of his victims? As with so many other instances in today's society, it's the criminal that is treated fairly; the victims just get walked over.
Nonetheless, it was heartening to see President Obama declaring al-Megrahi's release "a mistake" — though "an outrage" or "a slap in every American's face" would have been much more appropriate — and Mrs. Clinton urging MacAskill to not release the Libyan.
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
Unfortunately, since Megrahi was convicted under Scottish law, Westminster didn't really have any claim on him.
I have a hard time picturing what the hell the Scottish Justice Department, and McAskill in particular, were thinking.
After all the diplomatic effort that the UK and US governments put into getting Megrahi into a courtroom in the first place, anybody ought to be pissed off. Especially after Gaddafi then decided it would be a good idea to rub everyone's noses in it.
I wonder how old McAskill was in 1988? I wonder if he thinks it might be fun to resign? I do.
2 - Jeanne Browne
As we now know, what Sen. Kennedy was doing was not hitting the bottle, but dying. Yet that didn't stop him from doing what he always did: stand up for what he believed was right. Damning with insulting (not faint) praise was unnecessary and now, on the heels of the senator's death, unseemly, to say the least
3 - Mark Edward Manning
Totally in agreement with you, Dr. D. Great points all.
Jeanne, Teddy Boy wasn't dead yet when I wrote this, not even when it was published. In retrospect, co-authoring and signing that letter was one of his greatest -- if last -- acts.
4 - KELLI2L
What I can't figure out is why there is more compassion for a terrorist than for the people harmed by the terrorist. . .
That is the question everyone should be asking their politicians. If they did - no politician would even have considered releasing this criminal just because he became ill. . . No wonder people are saying there must have been an alterior motive (some deal or other)....because no other explanation makes sense - punishment means punishment (no mercy should be involved considering this terrorists hanous crime); unless he wasn't really guilty).....but he was found guilty....