The sages teach that justice without mercy is intolerable, because we could not exist without mercy.
And mercy without justice leads to chaos, because without fear of a strong government, men would tear each other limb from limb.
The Lockerbie bomber did not act alone, and the bombing was not an isolated incident without ramifications.
I think the reception given to the bomber in Libya was a show of machismo.
I am also sure that someone in some country who is thinking about the next bombing will be heartened and strengthened by the adulation the Lockerbie bomber received.
I am aware that a case could be made out that a refusal to release him would cause someone thinking about the next bombing to be strengthened in his resolve.
On balance though, I think there is more to fear from the consequences of releasing the bomber than not doing so.
Let us hope that no innocent person pays for the decision to release him.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I think there is more to this than meets the eye. It is highly unlikely that the “Lockerbie bomber” had anything to do with the bombing at all.
After the 1988 bombing, we were told by the press that it was likely the work of the PFLP-GC, a Syrian-based terrorist organization led by Ahmed Jibril. Later, it began to emerge that the PFLP-GC carried out the attack on behalf of Iran, in response to the missile that was fired five months earlier by the USS Vincennes, destroying an Iranian civil airliner and killing everyone aboard. After that attack, Ayatollah Khomeini said that the skies would “rain with blood”.
Then the stories in the press changed, and started to blame Libya. This happened in 1991, when the US needed Syria to join its coalition against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, so it was no longer politic to be blaming the PFLP-GC, who could not have operated without Syria’s tolerance and protection.
This is all mainstream information, by the way — the kind of thing that one read in major newpapers until 1991.
The evidence against Megrahi is weak, and the Maltese shopkeeper who testified against him is unreliable. There are two tragedies here: that of an innocent man sent to jail, and that of the 270 people who died, and whose true killers have never been brought to justice (and probably never will be).
Thank you for your detailed comment.
All of what you say may be correct. If it is then the discussion as it relates to this man, is moot.
But he is the man convicted of the crime and the principle of whether to give early release to a mass killer remains the same.
Also, the possible consequences of the effect on other terrorists remains the same. Would you agree?