I said early on in this discussion that I thought we could have shown Megrahi compassion and humanity until his death within the confines of his cell.
But here's a thing. Some people, including Dr Jim Swire who lost his daughter in the atrocity and who has meet Megrahi, believe that there is reasonable doubt concerning the robustness of the conviction.
Even allowing for the fact that Megrahi was convicted in a Court under Scots Law, there seems little doubt that the whole truth is not know at this time.
Although I don't remember MacAskill saying so, do you think that this something he may (or should) have taken into account and, if so, was he correct in doing so in reaching his "compassionate" decision.
If, at some date in the future, it is proved that Megrahi was in fact not responsible for this henous crime, then surely MacAskill's decision will have indeed been a compassionate and humane one.