So, in essence, it was our desire to seek a prosecution that had us make the determination, based on what the British were telling us, that this was the best way to move forward.

And that would placate hard-liners who might challenge Qaddafi.

Now, it seems, based upon the medical report and from the discussions that my staff has had with the Scottish Government--it appears that the 3-month prognosis came down to a doctor, Peter Kay, who is a general practitioner.

So, if someone were to be considered for, or in receipt of, chemotherapy treatment, it wouldn't be administered in the last 3 months of their lives.

In fact, Mr. Swartz, isn't it the understanding of the United States that, if found guilty, the individuals would serve the entirety of their sentences inside of Scotland?

We have also called upon the Scottish Government to be as transparent as possible in illuminating their decision.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Our resolute conviction remains that Megrahi should not be a free man and should be serving out the entirety of his sentence in a Scottish prison.

Well, seems to me that unless somebody reads the act in a different way--it was a foreign policy decision, after the compassionate release, to allow al-Megrahi to physically leave Scotland.

And finally, does the State Department believe that the desire for an independent inquiry conducted by the British Government, as Prime Minister Cameron suggested when he was the opposition leader, is something that would be desirable?

It is clear that while that statement was made, the Scottish officials who have stated that they opposed a broad Prisoner Transfer Agreement that would apply to al-Megrahi, at the same time made a decision to release him on compassionate…