View Full Version : Carlos the Jackal, free soon?

17th Aug 2010, 18:13
I guess Chavez figures that if it is good for Qaddafi and Libya, by God it must be good for him and Venezuela.

The Venezuelan Communist Party urged the Venezuelan Government to seek repatriation of convicted terrorist 'Carlos the Jackal', who is serving a life sentence in France, to ask the French Government to let llich Ramirez Sanchez, Carlos' real name, who is a native of Venezuela, serve the remainder of his term in Venezuela because Ranirez is not receiving adequate health care in France.

Hey, worked in Scotland, may work with the French.

Lon More
17th Aug 2010, 18:17
Why not?

edited to remove risk of banishment :ouch:

17th Aug 2010, 18:19
At the risk of a ban; what has this to do with the US guvmunt?

Nothing that I know of, but, with Chavez, everything has something to do with the US Government. :p

17th Aug 2010, 18:21
Is Venezuelan health care better than French health care? :confused:

17th Aug 2010, 18:35
Is Venezuelan health care better than French health care?

Not according to the French I would believe.

off centre
17th Aug 2010, 19:38
Sad to think that the French will show more backbone than the Scots.


tony draper
17th Aug 2010, 19:45
Didn't he shoot some Policemen? the old protocol was best,traditionally a Cop Killer never made it to trial.

17th Aug 2010, 19:46
Or, Tony D, maybe Carlos the Jackal will be "renditioned" elsewhere should the
Frenchies let him loose. :ok:

off centre
17th Aug 2010, 19:52
Actually form a conclusion based on evidence & known facts?

Like a legally convened court handing down a "guilty" verdict and imprisoning the now convicted felon?
Or one based upon "three months to live?"

17th Aug 2010, 20:00
No bigger boob than the conviction of Al Megrahi.:ok:

17th Aug 2010, 20:02

I'm not going to argue for that conviction. I have my own feelings on it and I feel he was unjustly imprisoned.

The real culprits were identified from the get-go. But were allowed to remain, and roam, free. As they still do.

17th Aug 2010, 20:08
Oh you're just sore on the guns thing!:)

Actually, on that matter, you expressed distaste for a conviction reached by a british jury in open court on a matter of illegal weapons and yet, and yet...when a Scottish court lets one go...Well, you know,a slight reek of hypocrisy reaches my nostrils!:p

17th Aug 2010, 22:36
when a Scottish court lets one go...Well, you know,a slight reek of hypocrisy reaches my nostrils

Which Scottish court?

17th Aug 2010, 22:48
Which Scottish court?

That's what I was wondering myself.

CarltonBrowne the FO
17th Aug 2010, 23:07
The conviction of al-Megrahi has always made me ashamed of the Scottish justice system; if the case had any real merit it could have been presented to a jury, instead of being handled solely by judges.
Carlos, on the other hand, is probably actually guilty.

17th Aug 2010, 23:36
CarletonBrowne, I could curl your hair with at least one Scottish trial in the High Court of Justiciary that came before a jury and put the (wholly innocent) accused away for 18 years. In fact, he was lucky not to be hanged. Just awful. It makes me cringe in shame.

My own policy is to stay as far as I can from having my liberty in the hands of either judge or jury. I do not trust either. I do not even like visiting clients in jail when I know I'm going to walk out. It is like entering a hospital when you know you are going to walk out ..... do you?

That said, I did not follow the Lockerbie case closely, and my knowledge of Scottish criminal procedure is about 50 years out of date, so .............. who decided to have the trial before a judge without a jury?

I do not know the answer to that and perhaps you do. It would be interesting to know, not that it is relevant to the most recent question posed here by me and con-pilot in the two immediately preceding posts.

In the 18-year case, one senior officer of the Glasgow CID was convinced of the accused's innocence and was naive enough to "stand up and be counted". I think it is fair to say that the City of Glasgow police drove him into an early grave.

Just to restore your faith in the judges a little, though, look up the case In Commendam before the Court of Session in 1590 or thereby. King James VI turned up in person to tell the judges, against their inclination, what they would decide and how.

The Lord President (I am going by memory here, so I may not have the words exactly right) told him that the Session would reach a true judgement, and that if the King tried to force them otherwise, he would write the decision in English and Latin and send it to every judge in Christendom so that they would know the Justice dispensed in Scotland "and so say the whole Session" (i.e., all 15 Senators of the College of Justice, that is the judges, Your Majesty, so go put that in your pipe and smoke it). The King backed down.

He was more successful a few years later in England, and so Lord Chancellor Bacon, Lord Verulam, the first KC, was impeached.

You will find the story in "Supra Crepidam" by the late Lord President Cooper.

18th Aug 2010, 01:01
Carlos, on the other hand, is probably actually guilty.

He was convicted, is serving a life sentence....ergo....Guilty.

Are you trying to say there is some reason to think he is not guilty?

Everyone and their brother is saying the Libyan chap is not guilty despite the court's verdict and sentence combined with the payment of restitution by his employer....the Libyan government.

What's a guy to believe about courts in Europe and the UK if we listen to all this?

Lon More
18th Aug 2010, 07:08
What's a guy to believe about courts in Europe and the UK if we listen to all this?

That OJ Simpson was found innocent comes to mind.

Or the cover up around JFK's murder?


18th Aug 2010, 07:51
Gentlemen, remember the RoE?

Aviation is an international endeavour par exellence; bigotry has no place on this bulletin board. If venting intolerant gut feelings is your thing, go do it somewhere else.

Your cross oceanic willy waving is getting boring.