The release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was bound to create a furore so it is no surprise to see how quickly the British Government and others have moved to distance themselves from the decision. The full facts will probably never be known, but the cynical will speculate whether there was some covert agreement on the part of the U.S.A. since the prospect of sharing in Libya's natural resources is so tempting to the energy-hungry countries of the west. What interests me is the way in which the arguments for and against Megrahi's release have typified differing moral stances. Christians, for example, believe in the virtues of forgiveness and compassion, which have to do with what we claim or aspire to be rather than what the person to whom we show forgiveness and compassion is or does — an important point when one considers the enormity of the charges against Megrahi. Like many people, I have some doubts about the soundness of his conviction and if it is true that he has only a few weeks to live, the decision to release him strikes me as an eloquent contradiction of everything that the Lockerbie bombing represents. But I could not help noticing that on the same day that we read of Megrahi's ecstatic welcome back to Libya we learned that seventy-three African refugees had died of starvation and thirst after being adrift for over three weeks on the open sea. They had been passed by a number of vessels, none of which had offered any help. For me, the knowledge of those deaths is harder to bear than the thought of Megrahi's release. If someone is hungry or thirsty, even if he is my sworn enemy, my duty is plain. Sadly, there is more than one way of being a murderer. Scroll down to comment.