Kenny MacAskill: Lockerbie decision was the work of a brave man

It would have been the easiest thing in the world for Scotland's justice secretary to insist the man who probably murdered people in the skies above Lockerbie remain in jail while he dies from prostate cancer.

But what would that have achieved? The fundamental principle of a legal system has to be that the rules are followed, and a rule of the Scottish legal system is that compassion can be shown when someone is deemed to be dying. For Americans, and others seeking to politicise this issue, that the medical evidence is somehow not reliable is laughable. Are we to seriously believe that the the British and Scottish governments have contrived to invent medical information to please a bonkers dictator in Africa so we can have access to his oil fields? If you believe that, then you probably believe the whole plot was cooked up while discussing Roswell.

The reaction from America was swift and if it's taught us one thing, it's that regardless of the political colour of the party in the White House, one thing remains the same: The desire for revenge is always strong.

Hillary Clinton waded in to condemn Scotland - and how I'd have loved the Scottish government to ask Hillary what Bill thought - Mr Obama himself criticised the scenes we saw when the probable bomber returned home. Then the American bloggers got angry, with comments ranging from the obscene to the marginally more rational but all of which missed the point totally.

As Robert S. Mueller, III (or The Third), the laughably named top guy at the FBI, who wrote to Scotland in a very public, very angry and very foolish, letter? Can you imagine his opposite number in the UK doing the same if the roles were reversed?

In it, the man who is responsible for leading one of America's leading anti-crime agencies, was involved in the investigation into Lockerbie himself and ends his rant with the sentence: "Where, I ask, is the justice?"

Good question Mr Mueller. Where was the justice for the IRA suspects America refused to ship over here? Where was the justice for those people who you locked up after 9/11 in that detention centre Guantanamo Bay you opened up outside the US to dodge your own laws?

But getting back to the matter in hand. Mr Mueller is clearly proud of being involved in an investigation which bought the possible Lockerbie bomber to justice. What he fails to mention is that the said bomber was currently in the process of appealing his conviction.

Mr Mueller grumbles:

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

Actually, to get his release, he had to drop his appeal, therefore admitting his guilt. The alternative was that he got to appeal, and possibly get the case reheard.

In fact, the evidence of flimsy conviction itself appeared strong enough to prompt some of the relatives of the victims to say the wrong man was behind bars. When you're a victim of a crime, as these relatives are, it takes a heck of a lot to convince you that the person behind bars isn't the guilty one, I'd suggest. Much easier to believe that the person they got first time was the one, rather than face the heartache of a re-trial.

He chunters on:

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases a full career - to see justice done.

But has justice been done? The question mark is there for a reason in the minds of many - was the man who did it caught? Or does Mr M find himself in the best position possible: able to rant about a release safe in the knowledge his investigation will not be questioned in the future.

Then we have laughable suggestion of a boycott of Scotland and its goods. Perhaps we should just be grateful we don't still have George W Bush in the White House now, or else he'd be demanding Scotland be handed over to his juridiction in the name of oil, sorry, justice.

And on the radio and TV the barrage continues. Scotland did it for the oil apparently. Well, even if it did - which I doubt - it would only be following a well-worn path created by the Yanks. Now where were was WMDs in Iraq?

Mr M and everyone else angry at the fact someone has stood up to America and refused to allow the country which "defends liberty" to fix a foreign legal system, seems to blame Scotland for the welcome the bomber got when he got home. Sure, it could have been predicted, but does that make it Scotland's fault?

To me, that makes "Calamity" Kenny's decision all the braver. Of course Libya was going to milk it for the publicity, but that's no reason to change a legal system, just as pressure from a bully-boy country isn't.

And for those pointing to the suggestions from Libya's leadership that the deal is somehow related to oil or trade, I say this: Are you really placing stock on the words of someone you've written off as a madman for 30 years?

Kenny MacAskill's decision was a brave one. It was also the right one. His job is protect the Scottish legal system and ensure politics don't enter into the decisions. He's done his job. If the Scottish don't like it, they can make it count at the polls. If the American's don't like it, perhaps they should think how they normally react to criticism before opening their largely ill-judged mouths.