So here's the question: was Gordon Brown right to do a deal and send Al Megrahi home to die after serving a 14-day per life taken sentence for mass murder in return for $15bn worth of oil?
The Americans think not. But then it was mainly Americans who died on flight Pan Am 103. And these are the same Americans who funded the IRA and gave stinger missiles to the Taliban in Afghanistan, then called the Mujahideen - with the expectation they would use them on Soviet helicopter gunships, and then, embarassingly, had to send a top CIA lady over to buy them back at $1,000,000 a pop before they could carry out their own post-911 invasion.
I'm inclined to discount the US government preaching from the moral high ground - as you might be able to tell. However the feelngs of American families should not be discounted.
And I wonder to what extent we should factor into our considerations the serious doubt now raised regarding Al Megrahi's conviction. It's pretty obvious he dropped his appeal on a promise of repatriation - his lawyer as good as said so to the Judge. His appeal may well have succeeded, which would have been embarassing all round. Remember his co-accused, Fhimah, was acquited at Camp Zeist.
There's a body of opinion which holds that flight 103 was actually downed by Syrian intelligence officers at the behest of Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655, killing all 290 persons on-board, by the American guided missile destroyer USS Vincennes on the 3rd July 1988. (Pan Am 103 was bombed on the 21st of December 1988.)
Given that Magrahi is very ill and possibly innocent anyway I'm inclined to the view that it was right to do the deal.