Not the early release of al-Megrahi, which I will come back to later, but the entire process from the moment America and Britain sought to obtain convictions for the bombing.

This much of the background is certain. The FBI are adament that al-Megrahi was involved - investigators into Lockerbie will tell any reporter that what was shown in trial (and what wasn't) was solid proof. Scottish officials are not, however; and the person instrumental in assembling the Scottish court in Holland that tried and convicted al-Megrahi, Professor Robert Black, is adament that Megrahi's conviction is deeply unsound.

(By way of disclosure and shameless name-dropping, Professor Black taught me when I studied at Edinburgh University, and we both share longstanding connections to South Africa, so I am a natural fan)

Whilst I know Professor Black was quite pleased with the legal arrangements under which al-Megrahi was tried, the case fundamentally came about because a deal (allegedly brokered by Nelson Mandela) was agreed whereby Ghadaffi would turn over al-Megrahi to be tried for Lockerbie and in exchange Libya would begin to be brought in from international isolation.

Given the Lockerbie bombing took place in 1988, and the trial took place more than a decade later after years of painstaking investigation and protracted diplomacy, the pressure on the court to obtain a conviction was extreme.

Whilst the Libyan public's belief that al-Megrahi was innocent may be easy to explain away, not so when it comes to Scottish opinion. And it must be this in part that has fueled the division of opinion between Scotland and America over the early release - after all, if you think someone has been wrongly convicted, however ghastly the crime, you are surely more likely to tolerate a decision that effectively involves commuting a sentence.

Compassionate release in Scotland occurs infrequently - there are roughly 3 a year - and terminal illness is the prime reason for allowing it. But it is a politician, the Scottish Justice secretary, who carries the final responsibility for any decision, and as a result the final decision unfortunately acquires a political undertone.

So what's the political context here, with a Scottish National Party government in Scotland appearing to acquiesce to pressures from Gordon Brown's Labour goverment in the UK to release al-Megrahi. The SNP and Labour are arch-enemies, so it doesn't make much sense to have them just dutifully oblige a request from Gordon Brown by releasing el-Megrahi and then drawing the political flak that inevitably ensued. But whilst I accept there is precedent for releasing al-Megrahi, there is still fundamental reason to question if al-Megrahi was released purely on the grounds that he has only weeks to live.

Lockerbie has been tainted with obscure political dealings for as long as most of us can remember, and it is not the first time ill health has been used to move on from a thorny legal problem with international relations implications (think General Pinochet, who was declared unfit to stand trial and so enabled him to return to Chile). This most recent episode marks a conclusion of sorts into what has long seemed a thoroughly sordid affair and one about which victims have never received satisfactory answers. That's the travesty here, and one for which no politician appears prepared to answer for. Fair play to Newsweek, however, for at least intimating as much.