As the disgusting man is near death, maybe it was a compassionate act to send him back to Libya.
If the 'judgement' of this government was that this act of compassion would ease trade relations 'twixt us and the Libyans, then why do they deny it? Is it because most of the 'noise' heard is against freeing the terrorist, this deceptive government is denying matters and back-peddling as fast as possible?
The whole matter - excepting the reception of Megrahi in Libya - is indicative of this government's lack of any courage and the total absence of any judgement.
Shameful - but when the Foreign Office is run by a spotty twerp; Trade and Business by a twice disgraced, unelected, pretend peer, and the 'Leader' displays the courage and intellect of a half-eaten Mars bar - should we be surprised?
Ah, but Good Sir, that seems to be exactly what they did. I don't mind incoming from those who think otherwise, but if one's country is a tad strapped for cash and energy, then to sell a prisoner in exchange for the oil contract seems somewhat cheaper than invading a country (at massive expense in lives) to achieve the same thing.
I may be totally wrong, however, and the Scottish Executive may have been motivated by purely humanitarian reasons...
The whole Lockerbie affair is murky from start to finish. If Megrahi was guilty as charged then it was only for acting as "bag man" (literally), and no person, group or country further up the chain was adequately punished. My sympathy is with the bereaved, who will probably never have full closure.
Meanwhile, North Sea oil is running out and rather than embarking on a programme of building clean coal-burning power stations or state of the art nuclear plants, the only home-grown response to the need for energy security is to deface the landscape with windmills, which will never meet the country's needs and are promoted by the deluded or the self-interested. Returning Megrahi to Libya will not be the last grubby deal done with dodgy people in order to secure energy resources.
So perhaps we should be grateful that we had him available as a bargaining chip in order to secure an oil deal - he was of no other use to us.
1) Tony Blair meets Ghaddafi in his tent in Libya and agrees the Prisoner Transfer agreement between the two countries (UK and Libya). Blair had not consulted the Scottish Government about Megrahi who was the only Libyan in custody in the UK. 2 hours after the agreement was publicised, the Scottish First Minister called an emergency Press conference and basically told Blair to go forth an multiply as he (Blair) could not make agreements regarding Megrahi who was subject to Scots Law and thus a matter for Scottish Government only. These letters released obviously show that the UK Government attempted to back-track on the agreement with Ghaddafi, but could not do so because they'd been doing oil deals at the same time.
2) Megrahi was released by the Scottish Government under Scots Law relating to compassionate release of prisoners. He was NOT released on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, because the Scottish Government wanted no part of said agreement and the various oil deals done by the Labour UK Government.
Needless to say, in the ensuing days, the Scottish Government have been tarred with the oil brush, loaded by Labour.
Any oil deals or any other backdoor deals have nothing to do with the Scottish Government
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has denied that the release of the Lockerbie bomber had any links to UK trade talks with the Libyan government.
Letters leaked to a newspaper show UK ministers agreed to include him in a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of "overwhelming national interests".
Mr Salmond said Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds with no London involvement.
But the Tories and Lib Dems want an inquiry into UK dealings with Libya.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill released Megrahi on 20 August, eight years into his 27-year sentence for murdering 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103.
The British government has always maintained the decision to release Megrahi rested with Scotland, but revelations in the Sunday Times will fuel suspicions about the motivations behind his release, BBC correspondent Norman Smith says.
Leaked ministerial letters reveal Mr Straw's change of stance over Megrahi's inclusion in the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which allegedly came at a crucial time in negotiations over an oil exploration contract for BP worth billions of pounds.
Labour ministers will not now escape the suspicion of a terrorist-for-trade deal unless they agree to the transparency of a full inquiry
According to the Sunday Times, Mr Straw wrote to his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill on 19 December 2007 and said: "I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.
"The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the UK, I have agreed that in this instance the [PTA] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Mr Straw denies the prisoner accord was linked to an oil deal, saying the negotiations were aimed at normalising relations between the UK and Libya.
Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said the prime minister could "no longer hide behind" the Scottish government's compassion for a "sick man".
"Labour ministers will not now escape the suspicion of a terrorist-for-trade deal unless they agree to the transparency of a full inquiry," he said.
David Lidington, the Conservatives' foreign affairs spokesman, said it was time "to get to the bottom of what actually went wrong in our name".
"We certainly need straight answers and the publication of documents by the government now, but I think it's probably gone beyond the stage when people are going to trust the word of the current crew of ministers as to what actually happened."
The BBC's political correspondent Norman Smith said the story would fuel the suspicions of those who felt the "bottom line" was oil.
The letters, he added, also suggested the British government was a good deal more involved in the release, and they were prepared to see him released under the transfer accord.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said it was a matter of record that his administration had opposed the prisoner transfer agreement between Westminster and Tripoli.
"We didn't think that the Lockerbie decision should be linked to trade or oil decisions by anyone who looked at the coincidence that the prisoner transfer agreement was being negotiated at the same time as commercial contracts," he told the BBC.
Jack Straw in 2007
All this, however, is academic as Mr Megrahi was not released under the PTA treaty but quite separately by the Scottish Executive on compassionate grounds
Despite opposition on both sides of the Atlantic, the SNP leader added there was "huge international support" for the Scottish government's decision.
He said the most recent endorsement had come from former South African President Nelson Mandela, who he described as a "towering figure of humanitarian concern across the world in the last generation".
Mr Straw has denied suggestions that the release was linked to Britain's commercial interests.
"The negotiations over a prisoner transfer agreement were part of a wider agreement for the normalisation of relations with Libya as part of bringing them into the international community," he said.
"It was always made clear to the Libyans that, as with all other such agreements, the sentencing jurisdiction - in this case Scotland - had a right to veto any individual application, including that of any application from Mr Megrahi.
"Not withstanding ministers' right of veto, the Scottish Executive wanted a specific carve-out from the PTA treaty in respect of Mr Megrahi. I gave instructions to British negotiators to try to secure this.
"However, such an exclusion went beyond the standard form of PTA treaties and in the event an agreement for a PTA in the standard form - including the rights of veto of any application - was agreed.
"All this, however, is academic as Mr Megrahi was not released under the PTA treaty but quite separately by the Scottish Executive on compassionate grounds.
"The Scottish Executive also refused his PTA application. This process was made clear at every stage to Libyan negotiators."
I venture to suggest that most ARRSEr's worked this out on the same day the b@stard was released. I just hope there is a "smoking gun" somewhere that ties not only Brown, the Man of Straw and the Princess of Darkness to the oil-for-prisoners deal, but also dumps a load of sh1t over Clinton and the Chosen One.
FFS, lets get over it! He'll be dead hopefully in a few months and most Americans with the attention span of a goldfish will find something else to whinge about. It'll blow over and in the short-long term we may have avoided turning the tosser into a martyr. In the bigger picture we may bring Gadaffi back into the fold and once he's dead and gone Libya may be a better place to do business with.
The only thing that is surprising is that anybody could be stupid enough to think that the general public could somehow be convinced that the release of a convicted mass murder (be he fall guy or not) was not part of a wider deal.
None of this has happened by accident and what are the chances that Gordon Brown was not all over it?? Nil.
Well worth reading the whole of the April 2009 Westminster Hall debate on Libya where the UK Government was already laying out the bollox "nothing to do with us" line on Megrahi. Maybe they were hoping he would snuff it before Scotland had to do anything in relation to prisoner exchange, which was of course a UK Government deal
Here are a few key bits:
Gillian Merron (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Lincoln, Labour
"The UK broke off diplomatic relations with Libya after WPC Fletcher was shot and killed in St. James's square. Our relationship was seriously marred still further by the seizure in 1987 of a shipment of arms and explosives from Libya destined for the IRA and by the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Diplomatic relations were resumed only in July 1999, after Libya had finally accepted responsibility for the shooting of WPC Fletcher and promised to pay compensation. That was paid in 1999. In addition to accepting responsibility, the Libyan Government promised to co-operate with a Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting and to abide by the findings of that investigation. Since then, as we heard from the hon. Gentleman, the UK's relations with Libya have steadily improved. Libya's decision in 2003 to give up weapons of mass destruction was a further significant step. It allowed a substantial transformation of Libya's relations with the UK and the rest of the international community.
As we have heard, Libya is well placed today to play a prominent role in the promotion of peace and greater prosperity in Africa and to ensure that Africa more widely plays a more positive role in international multilateral politics at the UN and elsewhere. As part of that, a strong relationship between the UK and Libya is important. There are three main areas in which we seek to achieve that.
The first relates to our efforts to combat international terrorism. I firmly believe that Libya's actions in the past few years show states that condone or actively engage in terrorist activities that there is an alternative path that will deliver more for their state than going down the terrorist route. Where previously Libya was part of the problem, it now helps us to find solutions.
Secondly, Libya is crucial to our efforts to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons. It provides the best example to the likes of North Korea and Iran that there is more to be gained from not having nuclear weapons than from having them.
Thirdly, Libya offers significant commercial opportunities for UK businesses. Trade between our two countries was worth more than Â£1 billion last year and there is the potential for much more. The hon. Gentleman raised the very important matter of the promotion of trade links. We would be happy to work with him however we can.
I can give him an assurance that UK Trade and Investment has a very active programme in Tripoli and the UK is a significant investor. Just two weeks ago, the UK and Libya signed an investment promotion agreement, and we also signed a double taxation agreement in November 2008. There are opportunities because Libya is moving, slowly and patchily, from centralised state control to engaging with globalisation. The private sector is growing cautiously, following many years of nationalisation and state control. We welcome the Libyan investment authority to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
On migration, we have very good co-operation with Libya. We work both directly and within the EU to strengthen Libya's ability to control its borders. We have an agreed plan with the Libyans to disrupt the flow of illegal migrants to the EU. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work closely together."
"We will continue to engage with the Libyans, not just on this issue, but on the broader issues that he rightly raises for the attention of the House. We will continue to ensure that the right thing is done.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Megrahi. A prisoner transfer agreement has been signed, but that does not provide for the transfer of any individual prisoner. Any decision to transfer Mr. Megrahi or any other prisoner within the Scottish prison estate is a matter for Scottish Ministers alone."