Airline bomber getting out of prison

Despite yesterday's criticism, two Labour voices spoke up for MacAskill.

The former first minister Henry McLeish became the first prominent Labour politician to back the decision when he told the BBC: "This is probably the right decision made for the right reasons."

And in the Holyrood exchanges, Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm commended a "courageous decision which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots law and Christian morality".

The Megrahi decision has seen Salmond's administration enduring the most intense criticisms and attacks since it came to power, after Robert Mueller, the FBI director, described it as "making a mockery of the rule of law".

The US president, Barack Obama, also joined US relatives of the 270 people killed in the bombing by criticising the decision.

But MacAskill's "brave" decision had earlier been supported by prominent religious figures. "The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness," said Archbishop Mario Conti, Roman Catholic archbishop of Glasgow. "In this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength."

In an open letter sent to all MSPs before the debate yesterday, Rev Ian Galloway, from the protestant Church of Scotland, said compassionate release was a Christian and moral act. "It was about what it is to believe in justice, what it is to believe in mercy, what it is to be truly human," he said.

It also emerged that MacAskill had formally asked the US embassy in London for permission to release a letter written earlier this month, which said the US government believed that giving Megrahi compassionate release was "far preferable" to transferring him to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail under the prisoner transfer agreement ratified by the UK government in April.

Informed government sources said the US embassy letter still firmly rejected sending Megrahi home to his family: the US wanted Megrahi to stay in Scotland, effectively under house arrest. They knew in advance that releasing Megrahi would prove deeply controversial.

But MacAskill told MSPs yesterday that allowing Megrahi to remain in Scotland would have been unnecessarily expensive: Strathclyde police had said it would take at least 48 officers to provide round-the-clock security.

He also said that putting Megrahi into a hospice to die would be "ludicrous" and would be deeply offensive to ordinary people living there. He said its patients "would have seen a travelling circus which would degrade them".

The minister repeated that his decision to free Megrahi was based on clear medical advice that he had less than three months to live, and the views of the governor of Greenock prison, prison social workers and the parole board.

Justice and humanity were "defining characteristics" of being Scottish, he said, and outweighed the atrocity Megrahi had been convicted for. "The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are," he said.

One of Megrahi's leading supporters at Holyrood, the SNP MSP for South of Scotland, Christine Grahame, is planning to use next week's debate to name a Syrian exile living under US protection in Washington DC as the true mastermind of the Lockerbie bombing, under parliamentary privilege.

But the Scots did arrest, try and convict this man. What you are complaining about is not the due process of law, only that you think the sentence is a few months shorter than what you prefer. Do you think the US should go off the deep end if another country prosectuted a crime on their soil, convicted the perpetrator and then gave them a sentence that was three months shorter than what they would have received in the US?

are you claiming that killing an American for changing his/her faith from say Muslin to Christian should be allow as we need to respect other countries laws?

Some of us think that the act of giving a compassionate release ... is inappropriate and sends the wrong signal.

But other countries routinely disagree with us on the length of sentences. In this case, the difference is three months. If they had originally sentenced this guy to six months probation, you would have a good point, but they sentenced him to life minus three months compared to life (or death) in the US. This doesn't strike me as a huge miscarriage of justice, only a cultural difference is sentencing, and not a big one at that.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Some of us think that the act of giving a compassionate release ... is inappropriate and sends the wrong signal.

It's not a signal by the U. S. It may be an inappropriate signal but it's really got nothing to do with the U. S. Why you are concerned about the signals sent by another country is puzzling.

Do you care if another man's wife wears clothing you feel is inappropriate? do you tell him? do you try to convince him to speak to his wife about how she should dress?

You may think the comparison is silly, but I feel it is as sensible as the U. S. trying to mix into other countries' business.

A little bit more then that my friend or did you not see the hero welcome given this gentleman on his return home/

How would you feel my friend if your wife or your child had been kill by this man and then you get to see a hero welcome for him?

Would you say oh well it only a matter of months before his death or would you view it as a great insult toward the memory of your love ones?

I object if terrorists and/or murderers aren't punished, and I object if they are punished but receive inappropriately mild sentences no matter who is doing the sentencing. I want people who commit vile crimes of great cruelty to be punished severely.

It's not a signal by the U. S. It may be an inappropriate signal but it's really got nothing to do with the U. S. Why you are concerned about the signals sent by another country is puzzling.