The release on compassionate grounds of Abdel Bsat Al-Megrahi, the Libyan security agent who was convicted by a Scottish court of carrying out the bombing on December 21, 1988 of Pan Am flight 103 in which 270 – mostly American – people died, has opened old wounds and created a sense of moral outrage, both among the families of those killed and American and British politicians who believe that allowing him to die at home with his family is a gesture too far.
 
But for the Lebanese, Megrahi’s release also coincides with the formative stages of another quest for justice: the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, set up to try those charged with the February 14, 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others in a roadside blast near the St. Georges hotel, as well as over a dozen other subsequent political killings. Those who have a chronic distrust for the credibility of such judicial processes have no doubt already pointed to the accusations of backroom trade deals, Megrahi’s claims of innocence and Libya’s recent rehabilitation as reasons why the tribunal cannot avoid being politicized.
 
Sadly, there were always serious doubts over Megrahi’s conviction. If indeed he was involved, analysts say that he was nothing more than a small piece in a jigsaw puzzle that they believe involved Iran, Syria and operatives of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command in an operation to avenge the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 over the Straits of Hormuz by the US Navy on July 3, 1988. (There are even those who believe the bomb was planted by the South African government to kill Bernt Carlsson, the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, who was on the doomed flight.)
 
But justice needed to be seen to be done, and, after years of pressure by the US, Megrahi and his co-defendant, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, based on what many legal experts argue was flimsy evidence, were given up by Colonel Kaddafi to stand trial in the Netherlands. While many of the American relatives of the Pan Am victims are spitting mad at Megrahi’s release, others, including Dr. Jim Swire, who lost a daughter in the atrocity, and who is a strident campaigner for the truth, have been able to see through the emotional mist and believe the Libyan was a fall guy.
 
Back in Lebanon, nearly five years have passed since the Hariri murder, and, as much as the event served to unite the Lebanese in an unprecedented display of public outrage, one that brought down a government and forced the Syrian regime to withdraw its army after nearly 30 years of occupation, it also proved divisive. Not only did that dramatic spring in 2005 divide Lebanon into two distinct political blocs, it also opened up a debate on the wisdom of going after the truth.
 
Those who believe in the tribunal, see its establishment as a landmark ruling against the political terror that has blighted Lebanon and other Middle East countries for decades. Others – and we do not include the crackpots whose default position is to blame the Mossad and the CIA for everything – will simply point to the holes in the Lockerbie conviction and predict yet another cover-up. Justice, they will argue, was concocted once and will be concocted again.  
 
Indeed Megrahi’s release will not have helped those who seek to convince the Lebanese that the Special Tribunal is worth it, that it is essential to the development of the modern Middle East. The best we can take away from the affair is to recognize it as a cautionary tale. It is not about the rights and wrongs of the decision taken by the Scottish Justice Minister. It is not about British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s clumsy handling of the matter and it is not about sending a positive signal to terrorists as a handful of US senators and FBI director Robert Mueller have suggested.
 
It is simply that when the truth is absent, division, heartache and anger remain.