Compassionate grounds?

"Because this man is suffering from a terminal illness does not qualify him for early release on humanitarian grounds."

Under Scottish law, it does. Simple as that. It would have required a deliberate decision to ignore the law in order to keep him in jail.

Further, I agree with releasing him with no prejudice as to his guilt (although I do have doubts about that...), but because as a Christian I will not descend to the depths of hard-heartedness which the perpetrators showed to the victims.

Yes, it's messy. Yes, there are other issues involved. But al-Megrahi was legally qualified for release under Scottish law. And that's that.

Mr. Megrahi was not alone in this act of terrorism, sorry...mass murder, yet he was the only one to face charges he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. That should have been that as far as I'm concerned. Because this man is suffering from a terminal illness does not qualify him for early release on humanitarian grounds.

The reason for his release was political, don't anyone believe different. Libya has oil, we need oil - ipso facto.

As Christians we believe in forgiveness, and mercy, of course we do, it is who we are. But we have to obey the law of the land and evil doers must be punished accordingly.

Remember also Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher who was murdered by a Libyan Embassy official on April 17th. 1984 while she was protecting them from protesters, the Lybians only acknowledged their responsibility in 1999. No person has admitted guilt nor has anyone been charged with her murder, she was just 25 years old and was doing her job.

Who would envisage the release of Ian Brady on the same 'compassionate' grounds, or Myra Hindley if she hadn't already died.

Compassion and mercy must be tempered with discipline and justice bearing in mind the victims.

Mr. Megrahim, remember, returned home to a hero's welcome, and that's more than 270 souls did on 21st. December 1988.

So far as I can see, the Scottish Government released Megrahi as an act of compassion and mercy.

He has not been forgiven as such. Indeed, perhaps the only people who can forgive in these circumstances are the families of the victims.

A great act of sensible and sensitive compassion by Scotland which I applaud. Forgiveness is quite another matter, and it is not for politicians to dabble in such waters.

“Mercy and forgiveness are concepts foreign to both Judaism and Islam.”

Is there really no concept of forgiveness in the Jewish scriptures (OT), Ernest? Was the Joseph who forgave his brothers for selling him into slavery not a Jew?

Here are two talks given to their own believers as part of normal teaching, firstly by a Muslim leader and then by a rabbi, which show clearly that mercy and forgiveness are basic concepts within both of these faiths.

“Just as it is important to believe in the mercy and forgiveness of Allah, it is also necessary to base human relations on forgiveness. We cannot expect Allah’s forgiveness unless we also forgive those who do wrong to us. Forgiving each other, even forgiving one’s enemies is one of the most important Islamic teachings. In the Qur’an Allah has described the Believers as ‘those who avoid major sins and acts of indecencies and when they are angry they forgive.’ (al-Shura 42:37)”
(from A Muslim sermon published in Pakistan in April 2009)

“The rabbis go even further in the ethical demands made upon the injured party, for not only must he be ready to forgive his injurer, he should also pray that God forgive the sinner before he has come to beg forgiveness (Yad, loc. Cit. ; Tosef., BK 9:29 ; Sefer Hasidim ed. By R. Margalioth 1957, 267 no. 360). This demand is based on the example of Abraham, who prayed to God to forgive Abimelech (Gen. 20:17). On the one hand is the self-regarding consideration that forgiveness to one’s fellow wins forgiveness from Heaven. As Philo states: “If you ask pardon for your sins, must you not also forgive those who have trespassed against you?” (Works of Philo ed. By Mangey, 2 (1742)). On the other hand there is the purer motive of imitatio dei. “ – (Rabbi David Rosen)

Forgiveness and mercy are part of the ideals of many religions. It’s unfortunate that so few religious people live up to the ideals they profess.

I believe that the Scottish decision to release Megrahi was for the right reasons. Objections to the decision come from a desire for revenge. Justice is not achieved by "an eye for an eye" policy. Mercy and forgiveness are concepts foreign to both Judaism and Islam.(and to the American "Christian" right.)A crucified Christ who forgave his tormentors is both foolish and scandalous to unbelievers.

But, equally important is the fact that Megrahi will not die in a Scottish jail. That would truly have made him a martyr for moslems and would have perpetuated an attitude of hatred and revenge. By being "gentle as doves and wise as serpents" a truly statesmanlike outcome has been achieved by the Scottish Government. Ernest Potter

Yes, it was the right decision.

As a legal procedure, it was correct, because the case "ticked all the right boxes" for that decision. To have refused release would have meant a positive decision to overrule the process.

As a moral decision, it was right. Even if he was the bomber and showed no compassion for his victims, to show him compassion says that we're better than that, we won't stoop to that level.

The controversy is currently driven by two forces. On the one hand, there is the political need especially in the US to have a target representing the dark forces against which they see themselves to be standing - especially terrorism, hence the arguments that the release is giving in to terrorism. On the other there is the anger of the bereaved families, who are locked into a grief which has never resolved and need a target for that anger; if the target cannot be Al-Megrahi it will be the authority which they now perceive as having turned against them.

Had Al-Megrahi not been terminally ill, his appeal against conviction would have continued. As I understand it, there were 6 different grounds for appeal; it was increasingly likely that the conviction would have been overthrown and he would have been released - not as a condemned mass-murderer, but as the victim of a politically-inspired miscarriage of justice. How would those currently shouting against the Scottish Justice Secretary have felt then - guilty?

I have the greatest of sympathy for the families of the victims - I remember standing in our sitting room aghast at the mayhem unfolding on our TV screen that horrible night. I have no time at all for the procession of politicians on both sides of the pond jumping on the bandwagon to spout rhetoric against a good man who was brave enough to do the right thing knowing that he would take a lot of flak for it. And I am disgusted and ashamed that a man who was probably innocent spent so long in a foreign prison as a scapegoat for several different political causes - the Libyan desire to come in out of the cold, and the need for whoever really did do it to stay hidden.

Kenny MacAskill did the right thing. I hope his decision leads to light being shed in other shady places, but I'm not holding my breath.