For the last 3 years, many of us have had the experience of standing in line at an airport, enduring and not enjoying the experience. We felt herded like cattle, searched, and treated with suspicion. We are told what liquids and other items we cannot take on board the plane. We are just relieved when we have arrived at our destination. Some of us may have wondered whether these precautions were necessary. This week the conviction of three British Muslims, showed us that these warnings are crucial.
Yesterday, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain, were convicted in a retrial for planning to blow up passenger jets in suicide attacks. The plot, caught in its final stages, was to detonate liquid bombs on 7 airliners whilst flying from Britain to America. It could have killed 10,000 people, so would have exceeded the 3000 killed on 9/11.
It was alleged the plan was directed from Pakistan, by the Al Qaeda mastermind behind the July 7th suicide bombings in London. Obtaining a conviction in this case was critical. An acquittal would have damaged the credibility of the government and security services, concerning their warnings about the dangers of the terrorist threat. Had the jury failed to convict these men, it would have been more difficult for us to take seriously security warnings. It would have been easier for Muslims to have claimed the government were simply scaremongering, and targeting their community.
It is three weeks since Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, announced the release of Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. But the row concerning the circumstances of his release is still raging. Had the three men not been convicted, the anger over the Lockerbie release would have increased. It would have been seen as a further failure to deal firmly with terrorism.
The enormous surveillance operation involved with this latest case, cost about £40 million. Scotland Yard was under pressure to stop the investigation and has cost the aviation industry huge sums to increase security. One could argue that the terrorists have already achieved one of their objectives, by damaging our quality of life. This case has demonstrated the close links between the young British Muslim extremists, Al Qaeda and the terrorist organisations in Pakistan. It is significant that, although America has about 10 million Muslims, it does not have the same problem with ‘home grown’ Muslim radicalism. This may be because the Muslims in America feel more a part of mainstream life there, than is the case in Britain. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, stresses that the war in Afghanistan is being waged to make Britain safer. But there are others who argue that it is conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has radicalised some Muslims in Britain. Whatever is the truth, opposing foreign policy cannot be an excuse for terrorism.
Some want even stricter anti-terrorism laws and increased surveillance, to combat terrorism. But the real war is that against hearts and minds. Violence and terrorism are symptoms, albeit extreme, of a broken society. This will never change unless people change. Here in Britain we have a number of Mosques where the Imam leaders preach a message of hate and not love. This message targets young men who feel disaffected and separated from mainstream society. The majority of Muslims in Britain want to live a peaceful life. It is time for their voices to be more prominent. The media also has a responsibility, in focusing on the factors which bring our communities together and not divide us.
There was widespread anger about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Al Megrahi is now back in Libya and there are questions being raised as to whether the Scottish Government was duped into releasing him on compassionate grounds. It is claimed that the medical evidence that he would live only three months is highly suspect. There is even talk of him writing a book. As for the three men convicted of the bomb plot this week, the taxpayer is going to bare the cost of looking after them in prison. Some argue that real justice has not actually been done. But the Bible says there is a ‘day of reckoning’ for everyone after death, even for those who seem to have been treated leniently for wrongs committed during their lifetime. Hebrews 9:27 “everyone must die once, and after that be judged by God”.
I applaud your quoting scripture. And indeed a Divine King and Judge interested in individuals is the truth of faith which unites all true Christians, Jews and Muslims. So sincerely, it is an apt and good thing. Bravo!
On the other hand, your implied discomfort with the alterantives being used has scriptural support as well. “Do you wish to have no fear of authority {(the secular and in this case pagan state)}? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.” Romans 13: 3b-4 (New American Bible. Parenthetic words are mine). The long neglected Doctrine of the Two Swords would tend to discourage dragging by hurdles, drawing and quartering and other old games once loved by this House. A Christian regime should have given Mr. Al Megrahi a fair trial and upon conviction his possible conscience as a self-perceived warrior should have been given some respect. Both a Christian and a Muslim cleric should have been available to him. He should then have been taken to a public square and without mockery have had his head removed from his shoulders. This should have been done years ago. I am a Roman Catholic and my own church is increasingly eager to reprimand people for expressing this view. However, it is the only moral view consistent with Christian theories of state. Nonstates which have sovereignty can legitimately hold other traditions to be Christian.
Not killing Mr. Megrahi has cheapened life for more than killing him ever would have. If he was innocent it would be indeed be tragic and the world bursts at the seams with tragedy every day. I do not mean to imply that your lordship would approve of this or would not. Simply that both parts of your expressed sensibilty are part of the Christian tradition.
I do not know whether the illness of Al Magrahi was exaggerated or not but I remain pleased that the Scottish executive decided that all prisoners are entitled to be treated with compassion in the circumstances as they saw them. The outpouring of hatred against this man may be understandable but justice demands treating everyone with humanity in spite of the baying crowd, and the ‘baying crowd’ includes the US government and their/our popular press.
I haven’t noticed much equality of compassion as prisoners don’t usually get ministerial visits to discuss their release.
I find myself despairing at this discussion too much to give any kind of cogent response. One lot of people quoting the Bible against another lot who’re citing the Koran, both finding Divine support for taking the lives of others.
Thank you to Baroness Murphy for giving me hope that there are still people out there with a conscience who value compassion above vengeance.
I remain convinced that Al-Megrahi did not commit the atrocity and have seen no convincing evidence of the sort, only a shameful trial and CIA meddling. Indeed, the Paul Foot inquiry, available from the Private Eye web-site for a reasonable price, which was published in 2001, sheds some insight. The Prime Minister has handled it badly and David Cameron’s posturing hasn’t won him any votes.
If Al-Megrahi did commit the crime, he should have been sent to the gallows. I am convinced that he did not so I shall not be joining our zealous American friends in their protests.
Also, double-jeopardy trials are the stuff of banana republics and should have been thoroughly and vehemently opposed. Their capacity to be abused by a despotical regime far outweighs the possible justices they can bring. It is one of the many threats to English liberty we haev allowed to creep in.
Setting aside the discussion of if the Death Penalty is a key component of Christian society, we should I think look at the issue of the Release itself and the ramifications it will have on society as a whole. I myself being a strong Christian who wishes to see a more prominent role in our Historical Faith in both public life and politics, away from the Dreadful new religion of Secularism that has gripped us, and leads us into ruin, and feel that our Broken society can only be mended when we cast off the shackles impose don us by modern thinking and Secular attitudes, and return tot he wisdom of the ancients. A Proper, moral society has always been fostered by Christianity, and Judaism and Islam can help. Modern Secularists, adhering tot he ideals of the Enlightenment, Marx, and Lord Russel, and Secular Humanism in general, Can’t, because it produces no culture other than Hedonism and treats the Human Animal as nothing but a creature existent to seek its own whims, and produces a selfish, ungrateful, impolite people.
Britain was once famous for its deep piety, and contrary to the story of Secularists, 19th century Britain was both deeply Christiana and deeply tolerant. Our moral views made us honoured throughout the world, and stereotypes as polite to a fault. No longer is that true, of course, because we have abandoned all things traditional in favour of modernism, and it has failed.
If you want an end to the Violence in our society, you must end it at its roots, and that is, abolish the selfishness, hedonism, and narcissisms, as well as the general attitude in our society that life is cheap and all that counts is getting your own way. Restore the proper British Morality, and the teaching of Scripture. Allow others to have respect for their fellows, and Understand their traditions, and work together on the shared, common values whilst building a cooperative society.
then fewer people would see us as a menace, people would be treated fairly, and we’d see a drop in the Cime Rate.
As tot he Lockerbie Bomber, I say it was a mistake to release him on Compassionate Grounds. The reasoning behind this is that he was not ill treated in his Prison Cell, and I fail to understand why dying on foreign soil away from home is to much a burden to bare for a man who aided in the death of 270 people.
He was not ill treated and could be accommodated medically in Scotland, as I’m sure Scotland has competent Doctors.
His release only ensures that those who wish the Western World harm will see the UK as weak and pathetic, and have no fear of the Justice they would reap. There is none, other than i the Afterlife as His Lordship did say, and for them they think God should reward them. ( Whether God will or not is of course in Gods court and in his Sovereignty, though I suspect they will be surprised by the end result.)
All we did was give a happy end and make a Hero out of a murderer, and showed there is no serious reprisal.
This, I fear, was a grave error, and may God save us all should this inspire more terror, out of a newfound boldness created by the knowledge of how we won’t do anything serious to them.
Thank you for taking time to contribute to a very important and controversial issue.
Frank W. Summers III- I believe that the true judge in one’s life is God. The words “inflict” and “wrath” denote vengeance. Vengeance is the rationale of terrorists.
Baroness Murphy- Thank you for your comment. We need to look at the facts. Al- Magrahi withdrew his appeal against conviction, thus accepting the guilty verdict. Concerning compassion, there is some controversy as whether that was the only motive for releasing him. There is more than a suspicion that trade was a motivating factor. Justice should treat all with humanity and equality, but protect society as well.
Jeff Wooliscroft- Keeping Al-Magrahi behind bars was not vengeance, but justice. I think vengeance is an unworthy act, and not one that should eclipse compassion.
Kyle Mulholland: We have to accept the verdict of guilty. I agree that everyone deserves due process of law. If a defendant wants to challenge the fairness of a trial, he should have the right to do so. Al-Magrahi ultimately chose not to do this..
ZAROVE: I agree that we should recover the moral values that our society has lost. It would be easier if everyone follows the basic moral rule of respecting each other. If we want to restore values, it will need more than the imposition of laws. It is about renewing hearts and minds.