Once upon a time, President Barack Obama said all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison. But new evidence suggests the president might have been feigning at least surprise.
Last August, the sole Libyan convicted in the catastrophic bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 was released from a Scottish prison. "Humanitarian" reasons were cited. This killer supposedly had only three months to live. He was released and returned to Libya with a hero's welcome. Now he's expected to live another decade.
But there's a brand-new outrage. (That would be on top of the last outrage -- talk of a dirty little quid pro quo oil drilling deal between BP and Libya.)
The Sunday Times of London reports that a week before Mr. al-Megrahi's release, "the U.S. government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be 'far preferable' to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya."
The bottom line: The United States, while opposed to sending al-Megrahi home, would accept a Scottish decision to release him on compassionate grounds if he were to remain in Scotland.
What a slap to the survivors of the 270 people who perished, including the families of four from Western Pennsylvania. Will the indignities ever end?
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.