I can understand the reasons for releasing him. I don't know how ill he is, but they said he is definitely dying, so I suspect he's not enjoying life much right now. If he's beinghero-worshipped, he's not going to have long to enjoy it.
BUT - I heard the press release from the Scottish officials. I agree with them. The bomber was not compassionate, he showed no compassion at all. But that doesn't mean the Scots have to lower themselves to his level. They are bigger than that.
And one point nobody has mentioned or considered - what about the costs of his medical care? Even if all he's getting now is palliative care, it still costs. Why should Scotland have to fork out when they can pass the costs back to Lybia.
If Scotland's generosity makes them feel better, so be it. And how must it feel to terrorists, to have to acknowledge the generosity of Christian charity?
The thing is, the Scots have chosen to do this, for a range of reasons. This guy is no danger to anybody, either in or out of prison. Let him be a burden back in his home country.
As for comparing this case to others - I don't think you can. Different courts have administered the cases you mention, in different countries. The Brits recently remitted Ronnie Biggs' sentence under similar circumstances.
I had another thought - I know in Britain that terminal end-stage cancer patients are able to get heroin supplied on prescription, to help them deal with the pain. It works better than morphine without sedating, so people can actually live active, productive lives for a lot longer than on morphine.
I don't think it's possible to get heroin in prescription in Lybia.
Marg