When I first found out that Scotland was due to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, my knee-jerk reaction was, "What the hell were they thinking?" But then I happened on the AP's writeup of the decision to free Megrahi. It mentioned something that, unless I'm really wrong, no other American-based media outlet has even mentioned--a 2007 inquiry raised serious questions about the trial's legitimacy. Further digging has led me to conclude that regardless of Megrahi's guilt or innocence, there are enough questions about how the trial was conducted that Kenny MacKaskill may not have had any other choice except to offer Megrahi a release on humanitarian grounds.
Megrahi was convicted in 2001 for the bombings, but in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found evidence that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The second appeal was well underway when the recent chain of events started that led to Megrahi's release.
The SCCRC's order to refer Megrahi's case for a second appeal revealed, among other things, that there was no evidence Megrahi bought the items that were found in his suitcase, and may not have even been in Malta on the day they were bought. The reliability of Tony Gauci's identification of Megrahi was also called into question.
At an October 2007 procedural hearing, several other disturbing facts came to light. The prosecution reportedly withheld several documents from the defense and paid Gauci to testify against Mergrahi. Also, a key piece of evidence might have been faked.
It's hard to believe that MacKaskill didn't know that releasing Megrahi would be tantamount to lighting a match in a room full of dynamite. But as I see it, MacKaskill faced two bad choices--keep him in jail amid growing doubts about the legitimacy of the trial, or let him go and risk the firestorm that's erupting now. Ultimately, I'd like to think that if there weren't so many serious irregularities, compassionate release wouldn't have even been on the table.
Looking at this, the closest parallel I can draw is the case of Ted Stevens. While it appears he was manifestly guilty of corruption, the prosecutors engaged in misconduct that was so egregious that Holder really had no choice but to vacate the conviction. I also think about the possibility that high-level officials knew torture was going on at the black sites. As distasteful as it may be, if that ever turned out to be true, the Fourth Geneva Convention may require us to release any detainees who went to those sites--even those who are guilty as sin.
Sadly, I've found virtually no mention of the irregularities at Megrahi's trial in the American press. It's hard not to think that if this had been adequately reported, the reaction to his release would have been remarkably different.