[This is the headline over a group of letters published on The Scotsman website on this date in 2011. Here are three of them:]
Once more another dynamic is added to the case of the Lockerbie bomber and with it comes a whole set of new arguments as to why he was released.
Of course, what people and the media in particular appear to do is see the recent revelations of the previous UK government exerting pressure on the Scottish Government as only a part of the decision to release him.
However, we are still left with the elephant in the room and that is the whole complex nature of the Lockerbie case. One cannot seriously make useful conclusions with this week's "revelations" without looking at the wider conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
This case is not only clouded in terms of the release, but in terms of the process by which he was convicted. How is it that revelations on his release are discussed but none of the more significant revelations in terms of after his trial: ie the new evidence or evidence not given at the trial?
We should go back to before Megrahi was released. Some see the release of the bomber as evidence of global power politics at work. This is perhaps true, but why is it that the question of global power politics in Megrahi's conviction is never debated - including the legal trial of Megrahi?
There are, therefore, two different elements that are clouded: his release, but, more importantly, his conviction, by which we came to this in the first place.
People have the right to be concerned at the release of a convicted bomber but should they not be more concerned about how a legal system can convict a man with such evidence and how a legal system can be bent in the face of global power politics?
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated: "The Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice." An independent inquiry would be the only way to sort all these issues.
You note that Kenny MacAskill refused to use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Comment, 8 February).
In that case, why did he tell Megrahi that he could not be released under that agreement until he dropped his appeal? Megrahi promptly withdrew the appeal and was then released on compassionate grounds. One can only suspect that this was a ruse to bury the appeal and all it might reveal about the safety of Megrahi's conviction.
As our deplorable politicians dive for cover for fear they are accused of moral courage, I prefer to recall the noble people who did seek freedom for Megrahi.
First among these is the GP, Jim Swire, whose daughter Fiona was a victim but who relentlessly campaigned for the unsafe verdict at Camp Zeist to be overturned.
He was joined by such seekers after justice as Nelson Mandela, Lockerbie's Robert Black, the UN observer Hans Kchler, Tam Dalyell and the leaders of the Scottish churches.
Even in the vengeful USA, there were brave individuals such as President Kennedy's valued adviser, Pierre Salinger, who protested the innocence of Megrahi.
He reminded Americans that, not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not.
(Dr) John Cameron