New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: Pan Am Flight 103, terror and compassion
 
Opinion: Pan Am Flight 103, terror and compassion Print E-mail
By Jonathan Langley   
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Jonathan Langley

(ABP) -- Convenient. That's what the Aug. 20 release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was. Not just for the terminally-ill Libyan convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. But also convenient for British Petroleum, Marks and Spencer, Shell and several other British companies who stand to make a lot of money from trade deals with Libya that are now more likely to go ahead.

The jumbo jet exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground. The majority of the victims were Americans -- many of them college students. It was one of the worst acts of terrorism in world history prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

Vast numbers of pundits, from anti-corporate lefties to President Obama (and the usual right-wing tabloid outrage-mongers) have criticized the Scottish government’s move to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But some (including Britain's most decorated foreign correspondent, Robert Fisk, who believes Megrahi was released to save Britain the embarrassment of an appeal) have cast doubts on whether Megrahi was ever guilty.

However, if we are going to invoke the importance of the rule of law and legal process in declaring that irrelevant in discussing his release, then we must accept that freeing or transferring prisoners on compassionate grounds is perfectly legal under Scottish law, and Megrahi was eminently eligible for such compassion.

Nonetheless, was the cited compassion moral? Personally, I believe that those who serve a God of mercy should also show mercy (there are so many verses that support this view that the Bible itself must be profoundly embarrassing to Christians who oppose it). But the mercy here is not even the peculiarly Christian mercy of radical forgiveness. It's not like he was just found guilty and Britain has said, “Ah ... bygones” and set him free. He is dying, after serving over 20 years in prison, and he wants to die in his own country. Surely even those Christians who find it hard to obey Christ in loving their enemies could stretch their under-exercised mercy at least that far?

“But what,” asked many critics after Megrahi’s emancipation, “about the families of those lost at Lockerbie? How would they have felt about the hero's welcome Megrahi received back in Libya?” Angry and upset, and legitimately so. Particularly because many of those greeting Megrahi as a hero will not have assumed him an innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice, but a victorious military hero. This is undoubtedly wrong.

But ask yourself this: If you were the mother or brother of a civilian killed by British or American forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, how would you feel about the honors bestowed on our soldiers when they come home? How do the families of those killed on Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 feel about the American military man responsible (Capt. William Rogers) not only walking free, but training other military personnel in combat?

If our objections to such an argument center on the difference between war and terrorism, I would say that such a distinction really depends on which side you're on. But to the families of civilians killed, I suspect it doesn't matter much who did it or what you call it. And I'm not sure God is that concerned with our semantics as to whether we are legally “at war” or not, either.

Does that make Megrahi's welcome less upsetting and more acceptable? No. But we run a serious risk of Godless hypocrisy when we fête our own side's soldiers as heroes when they slaughter civilians (whether in Dresden, 1945, or Khanabad, 2001) and denounce others for the same myopic and worldly attitudes. Every civilian death, whether “ours” or “theirs,” should for Christians be cause for mourning, self-examination and, sometimes, repentance.

May God have mercy on us all.

-30-

Jonathan Langley is a British Baptist journalist and a columnist for the Baptist Times, the weekly newspaper of the Baptist Union of Great Britain. This column is adapted from a version that originally appeared in the Times.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (4)Add Comment
...
written by ABP Reader, August 27, 2009
"Every civilian death, whether “ours” or “theirs,” should for Christians be cause for mourning, self-examination and, sometimes, repentance.

May God have mercy on us all."

Well said.
Absurd comparisons
written by Xenophon, August 27, 2009
Mr. Langley has missed crucial distinctions in his article defending the release of a convicted terrorist from Scottish incarceration. First, the government's role is to establish order and justice (of the retributive sort). Releasing a convicted terrorist early because he is dying of cancer is unjust. He did not allow his innocent victims the chance to say good-bye to their families before murdering them in mid-air. If al-Megrahi was actually innocent and not in any way an accomplice to the act of terror he was convicted of participating in, then that is a completely different matter. If he was innocent, then he should have been released with an apology and compensation. Again, that would be a matter of justice. Compassion should not enter the picture here.

Second, releasing a convicted terrorist without first exonerating him will provide incentives and encouragement to future terrorists making all Westerners at greater risk from Muslim terrorists. If you lower the cost of anything, you will get more of it. Decreasing the penalty that a terrorist pays for his murders will provide greater incentive to other terrorists to launch terror attacks on Westerners. It also confirms many Muslim's belief, which I hold with them, that the West does not have the courage to defend itself.

Third, American and British military personnel who have taken the lives of non-combatants in the Middle East are not on the same moral plane as terrorists as Mr. Langley seems to suggest. In the vast majority of cases, civilians were killed by accident by Americans and British. When there is deliberate murder as there has been in a few cases, then the perpetrators should be punished. Capt. William Rogers, whom Mr. Langley mentions, made a split second decision to shoot down an aircraft that he had good reason to believe was posing a threat to his ship. He made a tragic mistake, but it was unintentional. Terrorists on the other hand make calculated decisions to target non-combatants in order to terrorize a population into capitulating to their demands. While innocent people end up dead in both cases, the moral difference is immense. It is the difference between tragedy and wanton murder. I cannot conceive why Mr. Langley, and apparently ABP Reader, cannot make these critical moral distinctions.
...
written by javadave61, August 27, 2009
If we can't require a murderer of 270 persons to finish out his sentence because soldiers in another country at another time killed innocent civilians, then let's shut down the courts altogether. Obviously, it's not occurred to the author to seek justice for the innocent civilians of that war. But why would he? He demonstrates in this article that justice for the families of those 270 persons is quite unimportant.

As far as showing "Jesus' mercy" goes, the author points out quite clearly that "Jesus' mercy" had nothing to do with why they released this guy. So why do we Christians get charged with opposing Jesus' mercy when we oppose governments making crooked, back-room deals with other countries using "Jesus' mercy" as their PR mechanism? If Mr. Langley is siding with this decision believing that this was about showing Jesus' mercy, then he's been duped.
clueless
written by robber, September 16, 2009
I will not have some British bloke criticizing our defense of freedom around the world and comparing it to terrorism. Outrageous. Just what we need is another freak lib preaching to us about right and wrong. Our soldiers are heroes. We can't help it if you don't understand these differences. How did you get this gig?

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.