I think so, if I drink enough Dewar, I'm free from just about everything.

Rasmussen released a poll today showing 82% of Americans disagree with the decision to free al-Megrahi.

Now look at this UK poll:
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/public_disapprove_of_lockerbie_decision.html

53% disapproval in the UK - still a majority, but a significant departure from them overwhelming American consensus. Why the difference? Look no farther than the 3rd question in the UK poll - barely 1/3 of Britons believe 'al-Megrahi's original conviction was sound.'

The possibility that this guy is innocent gets almost no play in the US media. The 8/21/09 post on thelede.blogs.nytimes.com (Lockerbie, The Unanswered Questions) is one of the few US sources to delve into the issue.

Most of the victims in the Pan Am 103 bombing (leaving aside the resulting demise of Pan Am itself) were Americans. And we're more about "closure" (read "retribution") than people in other countries tend to be. But the curious thing to me is this: Megrahi could have been denied this request for compassionate release, and no one would have raised an eyebrow. So why was it granted in the face of a virtually certain uproar?

The issue of compassion aside, the guy didn't look too sick to me. I thought that he had pancreatic cancer (a sure death sentence) but it turns out that it is only our old friend prostate cancer. I quick surgical removal of the offending organ followed by some chemo/radiation will in all liklihood yield a long life from Mr. al-Megrahi.

Some Scots politicians have claimed that PM Brown negotiated and signed the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement last November without consulting or informing anyone in the Scottish government. Since, they say, al-Megrahi is the only Libyan prisoner in Breat Britain, the Scots were a little miffed at being kept out of the loop.

So I would understand if Mr. MacAskill took a "You want it? You got it!" approach to the 'prisoner transfer' and just laid the blame at Gordon Brown's feet, basically claiming it was all a fait accompli. Of course, MacAskill has not taken that approach at all; instead he has taken all responsibility himself.

Allen L. - if Mr. MacAskill is to be believed, the argument against keeping al-Megrahi is that Compassion does not take a back seat to Politics. Certainly Mr. MacAskill has made several statements along the lines of:
"Justice and humanity were 'defining characteristics' of being Scottish" and
"The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are."

I'm not sure whether MacAskill 1) took a morally principalled position, critics be damned! or 2) did what he considered to be the lesser of two evils, gussied up with a thumb in America's eye calculated to gain public support among Britons while pushing back against the US criticism he knew would ensue.

A small Marine Recon unit or Army SF detachment (Like Delta) should be dispatched to "solve" this problem.

Sure would have been a great photo op if a Marine sniper would have been positioned within 1500 yards of the LZ.

"A small Marine Recon unit or Army SF detachment (Like Delta) should be dispatched to "solve" this problem."

So, you're saying if we send one (or a few) specialists in to kill somebody, that'll solve a problem?

Funny thing is, that's exactly what al-Megrahi was convicted of doing.

Peace through superior firepower. Clearing the gene pool since 6000 BC.

I make a clear distinction between killing an enemy of this country, and terrorist murder. You do not. Simple as that.

>i>I make a clear distinction between killing an enemy of this country, and terrorist murder. You do not. Simple as that.

It isn't simple--that's the problem.

And you're still not noticing the mirror image--again, what you're describing is exactly what al-Megrahi was convicted of doing: killing what he believed to be an enemy.

in other words, you characterize it as "killing an enemy", and so did he.

does that make sense? or do you think that only America gets to define what "enemy" and "terror" mean?

All whiskey is freedom whiskey. That's right, I spell it with the "e".

One destroys innocent civilians, the other destroys a terrorist. And yes, when it comes to our national security, we dictate the parameters.

One destroys innocent civilians, the other destroys a terrorist.

By your definition, we are terrorists. In Iraq, even using US military estimates, we've killed several thousand innocent civilians. And yes, we've officially admitted some of those were intentional.

I guess that means we're a threat to our own national security and...terrorists?

And yes, when it comes to our national security, we dictate the parameters.

Ah, I get it now. defning a terrorist frst requires defining an action a "threat to national security".

By the way, HMLA, that last sentence of yours is nearly a direct quote of Mussolini.

Dewar's already *is* freedom whiskey. They were the first back after that blasted prohibition experiment (Because Joe Kennedy, Sr. had cases and cases waiting on the docks in anticipation of the event).