From American Digest’s The Shame of Scotland, the Shame of the United Kingdom, the Shame of the Civilized World, Geoffrey Robertson QC, member of the United Nations Justice Council, and first president of the UN war crimes court, writing in The Guardian:

It seems to me an utter perversion of the meaning of compassion, both in law and morality, to suggest that an unrepentant, mass murderer of entirely innocent human beings should not be required to end his life in prison. The Lockerbie bombing was a crime against humanity, part of a series of terrorist acts most likely approved by Gaddafi and cold-bloodedly carried out by officials such as al-Megrahi. The requirements of compassion extend only, in international humanitarian law, to providing medical assistance and pain-killing drugs to treat his cancer and allowing family visits. But his crime against humanity was in law unforgiveable – that is why – such crimes have no time limits on prosecution and no provision for early release. The decision to release him for what any person of any intelligence at all would foresee as a hero’s welcome in Libya was lacking in compassion to every victim of terrorism and makes an absurdity of the principle of punishment as a deterrent. MacAskill’s arguments are both morally and logically fraudulent. We show mercy towards the merciless by abjuring torture and the death sentence. Crimes against humanity are so heinous that the perpetrator forfeits any claims to favourable treatment beyond that laid down by the Geneva conventions, namely humane treatment in prison overseen by the Red Cross.

In other words, true compassion was not torturing his ass. Interesting.

Update: This story just keeps getting more and more screwed up:

Lawyers had collected masses of evidence for an appeal against the conviction of al-Megrahi, which he dropped last week in order to qualify for release on compassionate grounds.

Those idiots. So the guy and all his fans are going to be able to say, “Yeah but he was innocent,” and if anyone tries to argue they can say, “It would have been proven in the appeal, had it gone forward, but he was released before it could anyway.” And there will never be any way to disprove it.