Scotland this week released terminally ill Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing up Pan Am 103 on Dec. 21, 1988. As Robert Schlesinger reports: "The decision was made on the grounds of compassion—let him see his homeland one more time before he shuffles off this mortal coil. And not surprisingly the move has spurred howls of outrage (why should he get more compassion than the 270 people killed in that terrorist attack?). But there are some who believe that al-Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place, that he was, to use the Lee Harvey Oswald-ism, a patsy." What do you think? Should the Scots have set him free? Did they have the wrong guy, or is that just another silly conspiracy theory? Weigh in below.
Previously: Why Are Obama's Poll Numbers Slipping?
Take our poll: Should the Lockerbie Bomber Have Been Set Free?




Reader Comments Read all comments (12)
Gerald Wood of OH 11:24AM August 25, 2009
non hyphenated American of NY 11:10AM August 25, 2009
ChristmasTree of NY 9:20PM August 24, 2009