I've watched this thread develop, without comment, because I have had a great deal of difficulty in deciding what my REAL feelings are about this case.

Since he HAS been convicted (on however weak a case), I am ignoring the question of possible innocence, and dealing with my reaction on the assumption that the verdict was correct.

I am also ignoring the (possibly underhand) reasons why the Scottish authorities released him, and dealing with MY opinion as to whether it was right for them to do so.

My initial knee jerk reaction was that he should rot in jail, and die there, for his cold, premeditated, murder of 270 people who were not, by any stretch of the imagination, legitimate targets even if the attack had been carried out during a declared war.

I thought about that quite a lot, and realised that I couldn't be sure that my conclusion was based on a logical assessment, rather than a need for vengeance. I COULD, of course RATIONALISE it as the result of reasoned analysis, but that's not how I work.....well, not consciously at least!

So the next train of thought was fairly obvious. What is the basis for exercising compassion?

The immediate, and superficial, response is of course "Do I want to show humanity, mercy and compassion to one who has himself shown none to his victims, or would I rather sink to his level, and be just as cold hearted and merciless as he was?"

At this point, I was feeling very glad that the decision to release was NOT mine to make.

The clincher was the one single point which nobody has recognised or addressed. There were innocent victims ON BOTH SIDES of this story.

Megrahi is irrelevant. Whether he dies in jail, or in his bed, HE WILL DIE very soon.

But Megrahi has a family. They committed no crime. They killed nobody. They are INNOCENT.

It was right to send him home, not for his sake, but for the sake of that innocent group of people who still love him, in spite of his actions.

All the rest of the argument is irrelevant.

IN MY OPINION!
Don T.