Yes. Of course. The sum total of all the evidence that the authorities had to go on I'm sure.
But, another internet source (Wikepedia) says "On 31 January 2001, he was convicted, by a panel of Scottish Judges sitting in a special court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, of 270 counts of murder for his part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988." So if that is correct, then he was convicted of 270 counts of murder--that is a mass murderer and would be at odds with your statement that he was not convicted of committing mass murder. Besides, your two statements, what he was convicted of, and the grounds of those convictions are really two separate issues. So, I would reiterate that he indeed was convicted of mass murder and that MacAskill's "compassion" can only be construed as such by the wildest of imagination. It's so unfortunate that it's the common people who again have to bear with the immorality of self-styled demi-gods. --Mike On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Paul Brandon <paul.bran...@mnsu.edu> wrote: > > Please note that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was not convicted of _committing_ > mass murder. He was convicted on the grounds that a Maltese shopkeeper > said that he had purchased a shirt whose remnants were found wrapped around > the bomb <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111881314>. > I'll leave alternative explanations to the readers. > On Aug 24, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Michael Smith wrote: > > Well let me see. > > No I don't have a "character" or "personality" analysis of MacAskill that > indicates the "type" of person he is. I don't think that psychology has a > good enough handle on character and personality to produce a very valid one, > and anyway I wouldn't be qualified to conduct one since I'm not in clinical. > > So, my assessment is my opinion based on how I read the situation (as are > many of the posts by many of the posters in TIPS). > > Nevertheless it is an assessment that seems reasonable. > > The big question to me is how is it compassionate to have "compassion" on a > single individual when doing so will cause great grief and sufferring to > hundreds of others? > I maintain that MacAskill's decision to deliberately and knowingly force > great grief and suffering upon hundreds of people (including many of his own > countrymen) for the sake of having "compassion" on a single individual who > committed mass murder is a farce and has nothing to do with "compassion". > Rather, as a representative of the people in issues of justice he is a total > and complete failure. > > To pile up all sorts of 'considerations' and torturous judgement processes > poor MadAskill had to go through in this decision is merely to try to > obscure the central issue of his misguided and malicious judgement. He could > well have done the responsible and truly compassionate thing and stamped the > application: "Application denied". > > We will never know his true motivation which could range from twisted > libertarian ethics, to a desire for notoriety to blackmail. But it certainly > shouldn't be recorded as "compassion" when he alone willingly and > willfully forced additional grief and suffering on hundreds of individuals > who have already suffered greatly. > > > Paul Brandon > Emeritus Professor of Psychology > Minnesota State University, Mankato > paul.bran...@mnsu.edu > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
