But wouldn't it still be rather unjust  to punish a person over an accident (that is, not give him a medal he, apparently, otherwise earned)?

No. If he was good enough at his job to get a medal, he wouldn't have made that mistake. He is responsible for the deaths of 290 innocent people.

According to Wikipedia, he was given faulty information, and that's why he shot it down. That's not something he could have prevented.  Even so, earning a medal hardly means you're infallible.

I wasn't aware he was given false information.

what I find fascinating is the reaction to this, the Scottish government took a decision it was entitled to take, as I understand it, one that makes perfect sense under Scottish law, so naturally, IT must be a conspiracy by The UK Government with Libya, and of course, the Americans have to have there say (the people who bought the world Guantanomo btw) and call his release abhorrent and a scar of the Scottish legal system (whats Guantanomo then?)

this was a judicial matter, not a political one. The Scottish justice system allows for compassionate release. Mercy and compassion are essential elements of Scottish society, not something, it seems, that are core to the US system.

The Scots have followed their laws, it would be unethical to not fully apply the laws, and it would be a great shame for the Scots to be bullied into carrying out what the US demands.

as has been pointed out though, this guy was convicted on very shaky evidence, infact, there may be a public inquiry into this matter anyway, which may well conclude he wasnt involved, also as I understand it, he had a fresh appeal pending, that if pursued may also have cleared his name.

aslo, Guantanomo, the Americans torture suspected terrorists, so they reject not only compassion but the rule of law and human rights, so who the fuck are they to attack the Scots for showing Compassion? 

That's what the Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988 report says, apparently.

It may not be what the US feel is appropriate, but it's not their decision, it's for the Scots to follow their laws and the US should respect that.

The Chief of the Metropolitan Police would not call up the President to comment on an issue of American law that he personally disagreed with, it is incredibly unprofessional and shows in inherent lack of respect for a foreign judicial code of practice.

It's a shame that the US views this event as a 'mistake', they should respect the sovereignty of a foreign ally in respecting their legal system.

And the calls for a boycott of UK and Scottish products is outrageous, to even suggest that Scotland is in any way connected to terrorism, or would so blatantly defraud their own judicial system for political and economic motives is incredibly disrespectful.

The US need to realise that their system and their views are not the views of everyone else. The UK and Scotland have stood by the US through countless political and actual conflicts in recent years, and to be slandered and treated in such a manner by the President, the Secretary of State, Head of the FBI, Chief of the Military and Senators is outrageously hurtful.

im simply stating what ive seen/read, its also relevant because as I understand it, there would have been an appeal if this decision to release him didnt go through anyway.

um, the fact another nation says he is the man responsible doesnt make it fact, which is why he had a court trial.

as I said already I thought his welcome was very tactless and bad taste, given what he was convicted of, however, that is the right of Libya as an independent nation, are you telling me we should not respect the rights of other soverign nations to welcome people as they see fit?