US on Britain over release of Lockerbie bomber

I have to get this off my chest. In response to "growing American criticism over the release of the Lockerbie bomber when the most senior US military officer said he was 'appalled' by the decision."
What I want to get out there is my sense that some of the response to this is, well, possibly hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong I have every sympathy with those who have to live with the consequences of someone else's spiteful actions. I have my own share of that to deal with and my heart goes out to others. However, we need to reflect on how things might be were the boot on the other foot, so to speak. What if it was an American incarcerated in a middle eastern or north African country for a horrible crime but one which there was some doubt that they had actually committed (perhaps they were suspected to be a scapegoat caught up in a political situation). I imagine that not only would the USAmerican public be calling for their repatriation, but they would certainly be pleased if that person was released, say at the start of Ramadan, as an act of compassion because they had a terminal illness (released not pardoned, mind). I think that this reflex of 'do as you would be done by' should also inform responses.

Now the goalposts are proverbially moving: when first reported it seemed to be that the very idea of release was producing enraged responses. Now this article seems to indicate that the latest version of 'why we are mad' is articulated by

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN under George Bush. He said: "As someone whose grandparents were Scottish, I'm appalled by the decision of the Scottish government. But I'm more appalled by the decision of the British government apparently to see commercial advantage for the UK in having this mass murderer go free."

What the flippinneque ...? Once we get into this then it starts to look like searching around for reasons to be Mr/Ms Angry: 'Oh, perhaps letting a terminally ill person die at home is not so dire after all: there must be something we can nail them for ...'
I reiterate, this is is no way to condone any wrong-doing by anyone involved in this all, but it is is to encourage us to first of all react to the real facts and to withhold judgement until we really do know what's what and also consider a range of issues. Of course that isn't so easy for those suffering wrong in it all who need to feel that they have been heard and understood. However, that's not the position of many of those who are commenting and raising the temperature.

It does feel a but rich that official USAmerican figures are making noise about the compassionate release of someone convicted (some would say doubtfully so) when we are hearing all sorts of details about wrongs done by American agents to nationals of many countries who have never been convicted of the crimes that apparently warranted their torture. Smoke and mirrors? (And I am aware, before you ask, that some elements of the UKGBI gov may have connived at it -and that's wrong too).
US piles pressure on Britain over release of Lockerbie bomber | World news | The Guardian:
PS. This article has some rather acerbic things to riposte to some USAmerican voices: including a point rather similar to the one I've just made above and adding,

The next time Clinton calls to express her disgust about the decision to send Megrahi home to die, perhaps someone in the Scottish government could ask her in return about the leniency shown to US soldiers involved in the Mai Lai massacre in 1968. And then they can remind her about the US warship Vincennes, which blew an Iranian Airbus and its 290 passengers out of the sky in 1988.

Hmmm; maybe worth thinking about: rage is not a good position in the murky business of international relations; there's dirt on everyone and it's almost certain that any criticism made could be riposted. That's not reason not to criticise, but it is reason to do so chastenedly, soberly and with a degree of humility.