Artful Dodger:

> no matter that man's health, he should never have been released. He should have died in prison.

I am not going to defend Megrahi. However, people whould take in account several things. His trail and conviction happened just prior to and as the 9-11 terrorist attack occurred.

"Court proceedings started on 3 May 2000. The crucial witness against Megrahi for the prosecution was Tony Gauci, a Maltese storekeeper, who testified that he had sold Megrahi the clothing later found in the remains of the suitcase bomb. At the trial, Tony Gauci appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question, and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold. Nonetheless, Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in March 2002. Five years after the trial, former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, publicly described Gauci as being "an apple short of a picnic" and "not quite the full shilling". ... During the trial, the defence showed that Megrahi's co-defendant, Fhimah, had an air-tight alibi, having been in Sweden at the time of the sabotage."

So the prosecutions star witness caould not even be sure if it was the accused he sold the clothes to, or when. However, the judges had no reasonable doubt at all.

"Megrahi's appeal against his conviction in January 2001 was refused on 14 March 2002 by a panel of five Scottish judges at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. According to a report by the BBC, Dr Hans Köchler, one of the UN observers at the trial, expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings and spoke of a "spectacular miscarriage of justice"."

So the appeal against the rather dubious evidence presented was refused in early 2002, just after the 9-11 attack. It is no wonder that they were eager to find him guilty.

"Dr Hans Köchler wrote to Foreign Secretary David Miliband on 21 July 2008 saying:
As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi's case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?"

So the prosecution, following orders from the Foreign Secretary, was withholding evidence from the defense.

"The first official call for the release of Megrahi was made by Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland the Rt Rev Professor Iain Torrance. In July 2003 he petitioned British Prime Minster Tony Blair to consider his release in view of the widespread unease in Scotland concerning the safety of the verdict. The year before, the Kirk’s leading scientist, Dr John Cameron, had written a report criticising the technical evidence presented at the trial in The Hague. Nelson Mandela had also asked for the intervention of the Western Christian churches in what he described as a clear miscarriage of justice."

Poor technical evidence?

"On 14 September 2008, the Arab League Ministerial Council passed a resolution calling for the 'political hostage' Megrahi to be released from prison in Scotland. The resolution demanded that the UK government should hand to Megrahi's lawyers the documents which the SCCRC had identified, adding that Britain's refusal to do so represented a 'miscarriage of justice'. The Arab League also endorsed Libya's right to compensation for the damage done to its economy by UN sanctions which were in force from 1991 until 1999."

So if the Megrahi trial was found a mistrial, they would have to pay compensation not just to Megrahi, but to the entire Lybian economy.

It seems to me that if Megrahi was guilty, the prosecution must have had other evidence not presented in trial. For example, intelligence reports that could compromise some operative high in the Lybian government. Otherwise I don't see how they could have no reasonable doubt about his guilt. I suspect that the ultimate decision to release him was influenced by the poor evidence and the political influence that the UK executive branch of government put on the judiciary branch.

Apparently the man was given 3 months to live, with a chance of living up to 20 years if his cancer went into remission. 2 1/2 years later he is surviving. His doctors in Lybia credit his being near his family as helping to imrpove his health. I suppose there is a big difference between living in a jail cell surrounded by guards, or living a vila in the Mediterranean coast surrounded by his wife and children.