The Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, has been released from prison in Scotland and can return to Libya a free man after serving eight years of his life sentence.
If he's honest the GOS doesn't have a strong view on this one way or the other. If it had been left to him, he'd probably have left the man to rot.
On the other hand, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was given the task of deciding what to do about the fact that Megrahi is a dying man with probably just weeks to live, and the decision to release him on compassionate grounds wasn't unreasonable given that (a) British law specifically allows this kind of solution, and (b) other prisoners have been and are being released in Britain under similar circumstances.
Megrahi, 57, was convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight. Some 189 Americans were among those who died in the explosion, and the decision to free him has caused outrage in the United States.
In fact, it's caused a hysterical frenzy almost everywhere, from the airport at Tripoli where Megrahi was greeted by cheering crowds as though he were some sort of hero rather than a grubby mass murderer, to the blogosphere where many correspondents have hidden behind their cosy anonymity to spew out volumes of race-hate. As one bewildered reader plaintively asked, "Is there some deeper meaning in the fact that those wanting Al-Megrahi to rot in prison, on the whole can't spell?"
In the Scottish parliament the opposition parties wrung their hands and demanded that MacAskill "justify" his decision, despite the fact that they have all known for weeks that it was coming and what it was likely to be. Why didn't they debate it then? Any criticism they might have now, comes far too late to be credible.
And no doubt MacAskill will have had no difficulty with his justification. He probably bored the opposition into submission, as his original announcement showed that he is a wonderfully annoying, pompous ass who thinks that as long as he works the word "Scottish" into every sentence, he'll be home and dry.
Mind you, he missed a trick in his announcement. He said, as others have said before and since, that Megrahi had shown no compassion or mercy to his victims, and that they didn't have the opportunity to die among their families. Very true. What MacAskill did not say, and should have, was that this doesn't force the British justice system to play by Megrahi's rules. We ought to be (and sometimes are) better than that. We have our own rules.
MacAskill also slipped up when he said that Megrahi had been judged by "a higher authority", and that there could be no appeal against or escape from that sentence. Even those of us who are not Christians or Muslims can appreciate that while this may not be literally true, it is the kind of expression that is traditional and culturally normal in this country. We certainly know what MacAskill meant - that the man is dying and it makes little difference what any of us do or say.
So why, for God's sake (Allah's sake/the sake of some vague transcendental being who may or may not exist etc.) did the Radio 4 interviewer pick on this particular bit of the speech, pressing MacAskill over and over with questions like "This higher authority, who did you mean?" Who the hell did he think the man was referring to? Elvis? Ignorant prick.
As for the Americans ... well, the rednecks have been out in force and no mistake. It's a pity that they seem to have carried many of the victims' families with them, though. Just what satisfaction they might have gained from keeping a dying man in prison for another three weeks isn't entirely clear, but whatever it is, it doesn't reflect much credit on citizens of a so-called civilised country.
Which brings us neatly to a conclusion, actually. The GOS's considered opinion on this matter is that he's strongly in favour of anything that annoys the Americans so much. Well done, MacPompous.
The GOS says: All the furore led me to do a bit of research. I'm no lawyer, nor am I an expert on terrorism (in fact, I'm not an expert on anything), but I have to say that Megrahi's conviction in the first place looks a bit dodgy to say the least. Have a look at this penetrating discussion.
The original verdict can be found here.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS