[What follows is the text of a letter by Dr Jim Swire published in Tuesday's edition of The Times.]
Father of Lockerbie victim speaks out after release of al-Megrahi
Sir, So al-Megrahi has gone home and questions surround the propriety of his going. What about the question of his guilt? The official UN observer of the trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, has described the trial as a travesty of justice and the verdict as untenable. Even the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there might have been a miscarriage of justice. The questions that are important to UK relatives of the Lockerbie victims are these: who was really behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher Government of the day ignore all the warnings it got before Lockerbie? Why did it refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of an inquiry? Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in concealed for 12 years so that the trial court could not hear of it till after the verdict?
Dr Jim Swire
Father of Lockerbie victim, Flora, and a member of the UK Families-Flight 103 group
[Two letters are published in Tuesday's edition of The Herald under the headline "The last thing governments want is truth of Lockerbie to emerge". They can be read here.
A letter from Dr Swire also appears in The Daily Telegraph. It is referred to here. The full text is as follows.]
Kenny MacAskill was thoughtful enough to listen to some of the UK relatives before he made his decision. I thought him a man of integrity and urged him, on humanitarian and Christian grounds to release the dying man under 'Compassionate Release', not 'Prisoner Transfer', which I saw as a political trap.
Unlike 'Prisoner Transfer' This would also have allowed Megrahi's appeal to continue, had the prisoner not withdrawn it. Megrahi had always told me that he was determined to clear his name before going home, but under the shadow of death, who can blame him for changing his mind, uncertain as he was that he could trust his captors? After 8 years jail his appeal had barely started and at a snail's pace even then, although Scotland's SCCRC had decided his trial might have been a miscarriage of justice.
Whatever the unsavoury concealment of the 'deal in the desert' may mean, there are a number of us who believe that wresting something good out of something as evil as Lockerbie is the way to go. Surely improving commercial ties is a good thing for the citizens of both countries, that is what good politicians do.
The media reaction to the release ignores a far far more important question: was he guilty anyway? Many believe he was not, the SCCRC thought he might not be. The UN's appointed observer, Prof. Hans Kochler of Vienna has described the verdict as incomprehensible and a parody of justice. Many others agree.If he was not guilty, then why was he prosecuted and the real perpetrators ignored?
What we the UK relatives need is the truth and answers to the following questions:
Who was behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher government of the day ignore all the warnings they got before Lockerbie? Why did they refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of this inquiry? Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in concealed for 12 years so that the trial court did not hear of it till after the verdict? Why were we constantly subjected to the ignominy of being denied the truth as to why our families were not protected in what even our crippled FAI (crippled because it too was denied the information about Heathrow) found to have been a preventable disaster?
The details of Mr Megrahi's release surely are of little significance compared with these questions.
Monday, 31 August 2009
The BBC and Kenny MacAskill
The BBC is prickly about criticism of itself, particularly by people who work for it. I have some form on this one. After I left its full-time payroll, I wrote weekly or daily columns for newspapers, while continuing to be used by the BBC as a freelance pundit. In December 1988, in one of these columns, I criticised its pseudo-lyrical coverage of the Lockerbie disaster (bodies falling on soft earth; that sort of awful stuff) and suggested that they should stick to the facts. I was warned from on high that these comments were unwelcome and that I should watch it. I paid no attention. A few years later, I wrote a column critical of some of the policies of Radio Scotland. My Sunday morning review of the papers was promptly cancelled and I was told that I would not be invited back. Someone – not I – leaked my dismissal to the tabloids, one of which ran the delicious headline BEEB BAD BOY BANNED, a masterwork of alliteration. Since the BBC paid buttons, I could afford to laugh. I have never been inside any of its studios since.
Partly because of this form, partly because I'm so vulnerable to accusations of sour grapes, it would be wonderful if I never had to mention the BBC again. But its conduct on the political crisis in Scotland is so questionable that it is no longer possible to remain silent.
Sheila Hetherington raised an important question in her contribution to SR [Scottish Review]'s Megrahi forum last week when she asked whether the BBC was always impartial in its reporting. She quoted bulletin intros such as 'Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, has been forced to defend the decision...' as indicative of a possible bias against the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill. There was then the notorious Radio Scotland trailer which invited 'the silent majority' opposed to Megrahi's release to phone in. This gave a very poor impression of BBC neutrality, but on the programme itself it was explained that the reason for the appeal was that the calls received by the BBC to that date had been overwhelmingly in favour of Megrahi's release. Fair enough: although this did not excuse the partial slant of the trailer.
As the week went on, the hysteria of the initial media coverage of Mr MacAskill's decision abated somewhat. I noted on Thursday: 'There is a growing sense that the media and the political opposition may have misjudged the mood and spirit of a considerable number of thinking Scots.' The Scotsman quoted this the following day and endorsed it from the paper's own experience. The Scotsman's online poll, a larger one than any conducted so far, showed 57% in favour of Mr MacAskill's decision, while a poll in the Daily Mail showed a very slight majority against the decision. The results of both polls were in remarkable contrast to a poll conducted before the decision was announced, which had only 11% of Scots supporting release on compassionate grounds. Taken together, these polls pointed to a significant shift in opinion.
Late in the week, the apparent trend was undermined. A telephone poll commissioned by the BBC flatly contradicted the results of the earlier polls by indicating that 60% of Scottish voters opposed Mr MacAskill's decision. Even if the BBC poll was more accurate than the others (who knows?), it would still represent a shift in opinion, the tiny support for Mr MacAskill a few weeks ago having been converted into 32% of the Scottish electorate at worst, 57% at best. Given the irrational hostility of most of the press coverage (the Herald and Scotsman being honourable exceptions), even the lower figure feels like a triumph.
Unlike the Scotsman and the Daily Mail, which have a limited capacity to promote their own journalism, the BBC as a global broadcaster has enormous clout and influence across the civilised world. It has a responsibility, therefore, to be transparently fair in its reporting. Its own editorial guidelines insist that, in reporting the results of opinion polls, its journalists should be 'rigorous in applying due scepticism'. On this occasion, on a matter of the greatest sensitivity, it failed to respect these guidelines. Its extensive coverage of the poll gave the strong impression that the Scottish people are resolute in their opposition to Megrahi's release and that they believe Scotland's reputation to have been damaged. But in communicating this perception to the world, the BBC chose to ignore the results of other polls, the sympathetic editorial stance of both our quality daily newspapers, and the support of Scotland's churches for Mr MacAskill's decision. This may not be bias in intent, but it is bias in effect.
The lack of nuance and qualification was typified at the weekend in a blog by BBC Scotland's political editor, Brian Taylor. It is hard to see why an impartial BBC journalist – a lovely chap, but that is beside the point – should be given a privileged position on the BBC News website to air his views on Scottish politics. It is asking for trouble. The title of the blog, 'Blether with Brian', sounds designed to disarm. Look here, it says, don't take me too seriously; this is just a wee chat among pals. Needless to say, however, it is extremely influential, if only because it appears on such a widely read website.
In his blog on the results of his employer's poll, delivered in a folksy style in a succession of ultra-brief paragraphs, there was no acknowledgement of the serious doubts about Megrahi's conviction or of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's view that Megrahi may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice. No mention, either, of the substantial body of intelligent opinion behind Mr MacAskill. 'As things stand, Scotland is not happy,' he concluded. I suggest to Mr Taylor that this is a rather simplistic reading of the situation.
By yesterday, the BBC poll had become received wisdom in most of the Sunday newspapers. It was new and useful ammunition in the press campaign to discredit the justice secretary ahead of Wednesday's debate in the Scottish parliament; the attack dogs were out in force. Of course, the BBC will deny that it has contributed to this appalling atmosphere, but if it had to commission an opinion poll it should have reported its results with more scepticism and balance. The totality of its coverage in the last week has created the unpleasant feeling that, on the question of Mr MacAskill's political survival, the BBC is not a completely disinterested party.
[The above is the text of a column published today in the online edition of The Scottish Review by Kenneth Roy, the editor of the journal and Director of the Institute of Contemporary Scotland.]
Partly because of this form, partly because I'm so vulnerable to accusations of sour grapes, it would be wonderful if I never had to mention the BBC again. But its conduct on the political crisis in Scotland is so questionable that it is no longer possible to remain silent.
Sheila Hetherington raised an important question in her contribution to SR [Scottish Review]'s Megrahi forum last week when she asked whether the BBC was always impartial in its reporting. She quoted bulletin intros such as 'Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, has been forced to defend the decision...' as indicative of a possible bias against the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill. There was then the notorious Radio Scotland trailer which invited 'the silent majority' opposed to Megrahi's release to phone in. This gave a very poor impression of BBC neutrality, but on the programme itself it was explained that the reason for the appeal was that the calls received by the BBC to that date had been overwhelmingly in favour of Megrahi's release. Fair enough: although this did not excuse the partial slant of the trailer.
As the week went on, the hysteria of the initial media coverage of Mr MacAskill's decision abated somewhat. I noted on Thursday: 'There is a growing sense that the media and the political opposition may have misjudged the mood and spirit of a considerable number of thinking Scots.' The Scotsman quoted this the following day and endorsed it from the paper's own experience. The Scotsman's online poll, a larger one than any conducted so far, showed 57% in favour of Mr MacAskill's decision, while a poll in the Daily Mail showed a very slight majority against the decision. The results of both polls were in remarkable contrast to a poll conducted before the decision was announced, which had only 11% of Scots supporting release on compassionate grounds. Taken together, these polls pointed to a significant shift in opinion.
Late in the week, the apparent trend was undermined. A telephone poll commissioned by the BBC flatly contradicted the results of the earlier polls by indicating that 60% of Scottish voters opposed Mr MacAskill's decision. Even if the BBC poll was more accurate than the others (who knows?), it would still represent a shift in opinion, the tiny support for Mr MacAskill a few weeks ago having been converted into 32% of the Scottish electorate at worst, 57% at best. Given the irrational hostility of most of the press coverage (the Herald and Scotsman being honourable exceptions), even the lower figure feels like a triumph.
Unlike the Scotsman and the Daily Mail, which have a limited capacity to promote their own journalism, the BBC as a global broadcaster has enormous clout and influence across the civilised world. It has a responsibility, therefore, to be transparently fair in its reporting. Its own editorial guidelines insist that, in reporting the results of opinion polls, its journalists should be 'rigorous in applying due scepticism'. On this occasion, on a matter of the greatest sensitivity, it failed to respect these guidelines. Its extensive coverage of the poll gave the strong impression that the Scottish people are resolute in their opposition to Megrahi's release and that they believe Scotland's reputation to have been damaged. But in communicating this perception to the world, the BBC chose to ignore the results of other polls, the sympathetic editorial stance of both our quality daily newspapers, and the support of Scotland's churches for Mr MacAskill's decision. This may not be bias in intent, but it is bias in effect.
The lack of nuance and qualification was typified at the weekend in a blog by BBC Scotland's political editor, Brian Taylor. It is hard to see why an impartial BBC journalist – a lovely chap, but that is beside the point – should be given a privileged position on the BBC News website to air his views on Scottish politics. It is asking for trouble. The title of the blog, 'Blether with Brian', sounds designed to disarm. Look here, it says, don't take me too seriously; this is just a wee chat among pals. Needless to say, however, it is extremely influential, if only because it appears on such a widely read website.
In his blog on the results of his employer's poll, delivered in a folksy style in a succession of ultra-brief paragraphs, there was no acknowledgement of the serious doubts about Megrahi's conviction or of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's view that Megrahi may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice. No mention, either, of the substantial body of intelligent opinion behind Mr MacAskill. 'As things stand, Scotland is not happy,' he concluded. I suggest to Mr Taylor that this is a rather simplistic reading of the situation.
By yesterday, the BBC poll had become received wisdom in most of the Sunday newspapers. It was new and useful ammunition in the press campaign to discredit the justice secretary ahead of Wednesday's debate in the Scottish parliament; the attack dogs were out in force. Of course, the BBC will deny that it has contributed to this appalling atmosphere, but if it had to commission an opinion poll it should have reported its results with more scepticism and balance. The totality of its coverage in the last week has created the unpleasant feeling that, on the question of Mr MacAskill's political survival, the BBC is not a completely disinterested party.
[The above is the text of a column published today in the online edition of The Scottish Review by Kenneth Roy, the editor of the journal and Director of the Institute of Contemporary Scotland.]
Compassion, conviction and lingering doubt
[This is the headline over a column in today's edition of The Guardian by lawyer, legal commentator, broadcaster and columnist, Marcel Berlins. It reads as follows.]
What if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was innocent of the Lockerbie bombing? The furore over his release has concentrated on two issues: whether or not he deserved to be freed on compassionate grounds – the reason given by the Scottish justice secretary – and whether, behind the scenes, lurked the real motive for granting his freedom, which was all about oil and Britain's trading relationship with Libya.
Megrahi's return to Libya seemed conveniently to have sidelined another potentially embarrassing question: was he the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Was the decision to free him at least partly based on the Scottish desire to avoid having that question answered? Of course, no one connected with the decision, whether in Scotland, Whitehall or Downing Street, could admit, or even hint, that guilt or innocence was a factor. Officially, he was a properly convicted prisoner, no question.
It is not just Megrahi himself insisting on his innocence. For many years, the case has induced unease in the Scottish legal world. Evidence has emerged that appears to cast some doubt on the verdict. No one is saying the material absolutely proves Megrahi's innocence, but it has been enough to raise the possibility of wrongful conviction.
Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims, who led the campaign of bereaved British relatives to discover the truth about the tragedy, now believes that an injustice occurred – so do many families of British victims (though this doubt is not shared by families on the American side).
Robert Black QC, one of Scotland's most eminent advocates, who has studied the case, is of the same view. More importantly, in 2007, the independent Scottish criminal cases review commission (SCCRC) referred the Megrahi case to the Scottish appeal court, finding sufficient grounds to suggest a miscarriage. The court would not have been obliged to grant the appeal, but it has usually done so on previous SCCRC referrals. The court was due to hear the appeal later this year, but Megrahi formally withdrew it during the flurry of activity leading to his release.
His lawyer has made it clear that he did so because it was felt that continuing the appeal – which would have gone on after his death – might have prejudiced his chances of being sent home. In the last few days Megrahi himself has reiterated his claim to innocence.
If he was wrongly convicted, all sorts of new questions arise, not least who was the real bomber and whether Libya was the instigator of the attack. It is probably too late to uncover the whole truth, but should we not try? If he didn't do it, there would at least be a sort of vindication of the decision to release him, even if for the wrong reasons.
Is there any way still open to consider the evidence which might have overturned Megrahi's conviction? His Scottish lawyer says he will make the dossier public. But who would evaluate it? It would not be satisfactory to leave matters in uncertainty. There is a strong case for an independent inquiry.
[The following is one of the reader comments on Mr Berlins's column:
Maidmarion
31 Aug 09, 9:15am
'Much has been made of a BBBC poll, mostly by the BBBC, about the hostility in Scotland to the release of Mr Megrahi.
'I have yet to find more than one person who believes that he should not have been released.
'If you care to peruse these poll results from newspapers in Scotland, particularly the one from Lockerbie, you, too, might be puzzled by the BBBC poll results.
'Those For first number, those Against second number
Dumfries & Galloway Standard 88.4% 11.6%
Annandale Observer 73% 27% (Lockerbie paper)
Perthshire Advertiser 90.6% 8.4%
Ross-shire Journal 87% 13%
Scotsman 58% 42% (despite Edinburgh Evening News claims!)
Lennox Herald 80.5% 19.5%
Oban Times 89% 11%
Kilmarnock Standard 72.5% 28.5%
East Kilbride News 71% 29%
West Lothian Courier 75.2% 24.8%
Hamilton Advertiser 60.3% 39.7%
Airdrie Advertiser 56.1% 43.9%
Wishaw Press 83% 17%
Paisley Daily Express 62.23% 37.7%
You can add on a Reuters poll which gives a fairly even split and a Daily Mail poll also!
'The much trumpetted BBBC poll must have serious flaws, or someone manipulated the questions in such a way to get the result required.
'Otherwise, if you were aware of the above poll results, in all honesty one would have to start again, would one not?']
What if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was innocent of the Lockerbie bombing? The furore over his release has concentrated on two issues: whether or not he deserved to be freed on compassionate grounds – the reason given by the Scottish justice secretary – and whether, behind the scenes, lurked the real motive for granting his freedom, which was all about oil and Britain's trading relationship with Libya.
Megrahi's return to Libya seemed conveniently to have sidelined another potentially embarrassing question: was he the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Was the decision to free him at least partly based on the Scottish desire to avoid having that question answered? Of course, no one connected with the decision, whether in Scotland, Whitehall or Downing Street, could admit, or even hint, that guilt or innocence was a factor. Officially, he was a properly convicted prisoner, no question.
It is not just Megrahi himself insisting on his innocence. For many years, the case has induced unease in the Scottish legal world. Evidence has emerged that appears to cast some doubt on the verdict. No one is saying the material absolutely proves Megrahi's innocence, but it has been enough to raise the possibility of wrongful conviction.
Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims, who led the campaign of bereaved British relatives to discover the truth about the tragedy, now believes that an injustice occurred – so do many families of British victims (though this doubt is not shared by families on the American side).
Robert Black QC, one of Scotland's most eminent advocates, who has studied the case, is of the same view. More importantly, in 2007, the independent Scottish criminal cases review commission (SCCRC) referred the Megrahi case to the Scottish appeal court, finding sufficient grounds to suggest a miscarriage. The court would not have been obliged to grant the appeal, but it has usually done so on previous SCCRC referrals. The court was due to hear the appeal later this year, but Megrahi formally withdrew it during the flurry of activity leading to his release.
His lawyer has made it clear that he did so because it was felt that continuing the appeal – which would have gone on after his death – might have prejudiced his chances of being sent home. In the last few days Megrahi himself has reiterated his claim to innocence.
If he was wrongly convicted, all sorts of new questions arise, not least who was the real bomber and whether Libya was the instigator of the attack. It is probably too late to uncover the whole truth, but should we not try? If he didn't do it, there would at least be a sort of vindication of the decision to release him, even if for the wrong reasons.
Is there any way still open to consider the evidence which might have overturned Megrahi's conviction? His Scottish lawyer says he will make the dossier public. But who would evaluate it? It would not be satisfactory to leave matters in uncertainty. There is a strong case for an independent inquiry.
[The following is one of the reader comments on Mr Berlins's column:
Maidmarion
31 Aug 09, 9:15am
'Much has been made of a BBBC poll, mostly by the BBBC, about the hostility in Scotland to the release of Mr Megrahi.
'I have yet to find more than one person who believes that he should not have been released.
'If you care to peruse these poll results from newspapers in Scotland, particularly the one from Lockerbie, you, too, might be puzzled by the BBBC poll results.
'Those For first number, those Against second number
Dumfries & Galloway Standard 88.4% 11.6%
Annandale Observer 73% 27% (Lockerbie paper)
Perthshire Advertiser 90.6% 8.4%
Ross-shire Journal 87% 13%
Scotsman 58% 42% (despite Edinburgh Evening News claims!)
Lennox Herald 80.5% 19.5%
Oban Times 89% 11%
Kilmarnock Standard 72.5% 28.5%
East Kilbride News 71% 29%
West Lothian Courier 75.2% 24.8%
Hamilton Advertiser 60.3% 39.7%
Airdrie Advertiser 56.1% 43.9%
Wishaw Press 83% 17%
Paisley Daily Express 62.23% 37.7%
You can add on a Reuters poll which gives a fairly even split and a Daily Mail poll also!
'The much trumpetted BBBC poll must have serious flaws, or someone manipulated the questions in such a way to get the result required.
'Otherwise, if you were aware of the above poll results, in all honesty one would have to start again, would one not?']
Letters to the editor of The Herald
[The Herald today prints six letters on the repatriation issue. All are supportive of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's decision. The following are excerpts.]
The Herald deserves great credit for its fair and measured reporting on all aspects of the Lockerbie atrocity and the freeing of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Clearly, the only way peace of mind can be achieved on both sides of the Atlantic will be by the establishment of an independent public inquiry to examine the facts surrounding this most complex and controversial case.
The victims and their families deserve to know the truth, and perhaps it will emerge that Megrahi has also been a victim. Open minds and generosity of spirit are needed for the present, and future opinion polls may very well show a fair-minded public giving full support to a Justice Secretary whose brave and principled decision allowed Scotland to demonstrate to the world that it is a nation defined by its compassion, integrity and justice to all.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
I am immensely proud of the integrity and courage of the Scottish Justice Secretary's decision and, as an elected member of the Scottish Parliament and member of the Scottish cabinet, he does act in my name, and I accept that. I also think there may well be profound positive implications for world politics in the long run.
First, and not only because Gaddafi's son says it, this decision may well have "touched Libyans", and the flags were celebratory and respectful, just as we would celebrate the return home of a long-held prisoner from abroad.
Secondly, this decision may well have touched the hearts not only of Libyans but also moderate Muslims around the world. It may have a deep and long-lasting impact on Muslim views of the west, when one small nation does not practice vengeance but has the maturity to act in a compassionate way to the one who is held to have injured us.
Veronica Gordon Smith, Edinburgh.
The speculation regarding the amount of time Megrahi has to live appears to reach new lows of obscenity.
So far nobody has questioned whether the "three months" are lunar months or the various combinations of 30- and 31-day months.
We now have the playground spectacle of the greatest experts in the western hemisphere uttering phrases hardly seen in the scientific journals of their chosen subjects; phrases such as "egg on his face" rather than: "The predictions have led to somewhat divergent results."
We also have expert politicians who, like onlookers at a playground fight, are backing their "expert" because he is a "better professor than the rest".
I can only hope that if they are eventually proved wrong, they have the good grace to apologise for holding everyone up.
I have long been of the opinion that when an expert leaves medicine for politics, then there is an immediate increase in the IQ of both professions; this saga has only strengthened my opinion.
Dr Andrew Craik, Calderwood, East Kilbride.
Have our opposition politicians really descended to the level of playground conkers whereby we may expect ructions should Megrahi live one day longer than three months predicted?
Bill Waddell, Cumbernauld.
Are the Americans really concerned about the release of Megrahi, purely because of the Lockerbie atrocity?
The detention of Megrahi in a Scottish prison put a cloud over relations between Libya and the UK; had he died here, antagonism towards the UK would have lasted many years.
As long as he remained in Scotland the UK suffered difficult trade relations with Libya, leaving a gap for others to cash in on, both in trade and oil exploration. No doubt many of the companies best placed to take advantage of this situation would be from the US.
International relations are a murky business at best. Maybe we should hesitate and think a while before accepting the outrage of some US officials at face value.
Maggie Jamieson, South Queensferry.
The Herald deserves great credit for its fair and measured reporting on all aspects of the Lockerbie atrocity and the freeing of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Clearly, the only way peace of mind can be achieved on both sides of the Atlantic will be by the establishment of an independent public inquiry to examine the facts surrounding this most complex and controversial case.
The victims and their families deserve to know the truth, and perhaps it will emerge that Megrahi has also been a victim. Open minds and generosity of spirit are needed for the present, and future opinion polls may very well show a fair-minded public giving full support to a Justice Secretary whose brave and principled decision allowed Scotland to demonstrate to the world that it is a nation defined by its compassion, integrity and justice to all.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
I am immensely proud of the integrity and courage of the Scottish Justice Secretary's decision and, as an elected member of the Scottish Parliament and member of the Scottish cabinet, he does act in my name, and I accept that. I also think there may well be profound positive implications for world politics in the long run.
First, and not only because Gaddafi's son says it, this decision may well have "touched Libyans", and the flags were celebratory and respectful, just as we would celebrate the return home of a long-held prisoner from abroad.
Secondly, this decision may well have touched the hearts not only of Libyans but also moderate Muslims around the world. It may have a deep and long-lasting impact on Muslim views of the west, when one small nation does not practice vengeance but has the maturity to act in a compassionate way to the one who is held to have injured us.
Veronica Gordon Smith, Edinburgh.
The speculation regarding the amount of time Megrahi has to live appears to reach new lows of obscenity.
So far nobody has questioned whether the "three months" are lunar months or the various combinations of 30- and 31-day months.
We now have the playground spectacle of the greatest experts in the western hemisphere uttering phrases hardly seen in the scientific journals of their chosen subjects; phrases such as "egg on his face" rather than: "The predictions have led to somewhat divergent results."
We also have expert politicians who, like onlookers at a playground fight, are backing their "expert" because he is a "better professor than the rest".
I can only hope that if they are eventually proved wrong, they have the good grace to apologise for holding everyone up.
I have long been of the opinion that when an expert leaves medicine for politics, then there is an immediate increase in the IQ of both professions; this saga has only strengthened my opinion.
Dr Andrew Craik, Calderwood, East Kilbride.
Have our opposition politicians really descended to the level of playground conkers whereby we may expect ructions should Megrahi live one day longer than three months predicted?
Bill Waddell, Cumbernauld.
Are the Americans really concerned about the release of Megrahi, purely because of the Lockerbie atrocity?
The detention of Megrahi in a Scottish prison put a cloud over relations between Libya and the UK; had he died here, antagonism towards the UK would have lasted many years.
As long as he remained in Scotland the UK suffered difficult trade relations with Libya, leaving a gap for others to cash in on, both in trade and oil exploration. No doubt many of the companies best placed to take advantage of this situation would be from the US.
International relations are a murky business at best. Maybe we should hesitate and think a while before accepting the outrage of some US officials at face value.
Maggie Jamieson, South Queensferry.
Compassionate release was not part of international game
[The following are excepts from an article in The Daily Telegraph by Alan Cochrane.]
[A]mid all the scenarios surrounding this singular episode -- some crackpot, some merely misguided -- the single fact that many people appear to have great difficulty in accepting is Kenny MacAskill was not acting out a part in some great international game when he decided to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The Scottish Justice Minister released Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Full stop. He did not release him as part of a prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya. The two are entirely separate and distinct.
A prisoner transfer agreement had been brokered by Tony Blair, ratified by Gordon Brown and implemented by Jack Straw and may well have seen Megrahi sent back to Libya to serve out the remainder of his 27-year sentence in exchange for some lucrative oil deals for British, EU and US companies.
But he was not sent back to Libya under the terms of that agreement. In fact, as he and Alex Salmond keep saying, Mr MacAskill refused, for a variety of reasons, to send him back under a prisoner transfer deal. Instead, he decided to release him on compassionate grounds after he was told, he says, that Megrahi had three months or less to live because of his terminal cancer.
What is driving this correspondent to distraction is the continued belief in some quarters that the SNP administration in Edinburgh was acting under orders from Downing Street in letting the bomber go home. To anyone who knows anything about the current relationship between ministers in London and Edinburgh and about the devolution 'settlement' in general, such a theory is positively bonkers. (...)
There clearly was a prisoner transfer deal connected with oil business and Megrahi was obviously a part of it but those issues are for Gordon Brown and his Cabinet to answer, not Messrs Salmond and MacAskill. Indeed, that pair are coming over all holier-than-thou over the fact that they didn't send him home to die because of any deals done by London, but for compassionate reasons.
Call me old fashioned, if you like, but that's what I believe to be the case. And I think the decision was the right one, even if they're getting more than a bit sanctimonious about the whole affair.
If there are questions to be answered about why the British government thinks that terrorist bombers are fit subjects to be included in trade deals and their release bartered away for commercial ends, then that's for them to explain. It is no business of the Nats in Edinburgh, which to be fair to them is what they've been saying to London for nigh on two years.
[A]mid all the scenarios surrounding this singular episode -- some crackpot, some merely misguided -- the single fact that many people appear to have great difficulty in accepting is Kenny MacAskill was not acting out a part in some great international game when he decided to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The Scottish Justice Minister released Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Full stop. He did not release him as part of a prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya. The two are entirely separate and distinct.
A prisoner transfer agreement had been brokered by Tony Blair, ratified by Gordon Brown and implemented by Jack Straw and may well have seen Megrahi sent back to Libya to serve out the remainder of his 27-year sentence in exchange for some lucrative oil deals for British, EU and US companies.
But he was not sent back to Libya under the terms of that agreement. In fact, as he and Alex Salmond keep saying, Mr MacAskill refused, for a variety of reasons, to send him back under a prisoner transfer deal. Instead, he decided to release him on compassionate grounds after he was told, he says, that Megrahi had three months or less to live because of his terminal cancer.
What is driving this correspondent to distraction is the continued belief in some quarters that the SNP administration in Edinburgh was acting under orders from Downing Street in letting the bomber go home. To anyone who knows anything about the current relationship between ministers in London and Edinburgh and about the devolution 'settlement' in general, such a theory is positively bonkers. (...)
There clearly was a prisoner transfer deal connected with oil business and Megrahi was obviously a part of it but those issues are for Gordon Brown and his Cabinet to answer, not Messrs Salmond and MacAskill. Indeed, that pair are coming over all holier-than-thou over the fact that they didn't send him home to die because of any deals done by London, but for compassionate reasons.
Call me old fashioned, if you like, but that's what I believe to be the case. And I think the decision was the right one, even if they're getting more than a bit sanctimonious about the whole affair.
If there are questions to be answered about why the British government thinks that terrorist bombers are fit subjects to be included in trade deals and their release bartered away for commercial ends, then that's for them to explain. It is no business of the Nats in Edinburgh, which to be fair to them is what they've been saying to London for nigh on two years.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Straw denies Megrahi release was connected to trade deals
[This is the headline over an article in Monday's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, has described as "absurd" suggestions that trade deals had anything to do with the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Mr Straw was forced into the denial after letters leaked to a Sunday newspaper appeared to show that he had backed away from efforts to stipulate that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi should be exempt from a prisoner transfer agreement signed with Libya in 2007.
His comments were made as the father of one of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am 103 said it was time "to stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi’s release" and Nelson Mandela sent a letter of support to the Scottish Government. (...)
Mr Straw said: "The implication that, somehow or other, we have done some back-door deal in order to release Mr Megrahi is simply nonsense.
"What makes this whole debate absurd now is that Mr Megrahi was not released under the prisoner transfer agreement."
Mr Straw admitted that in return for Libya abandoning its nuclear weapons programme there were moves to "establish wider relations including trade", but added: "the suggestion that at any stage there was some kind of back-door deal done over Mr Megrahi’s transfer because of trade is simply untrue". (...)
Nelson Mandela played a central role in facilitating the handover of Megrahi to the United Nations so he could stand trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands, and subsequently visited him in Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow.
His backing emerged in a letter sent by Professor Jake Gerwel, chairperson of the Mandela Foundation.
He said: "Mr Mandela sincerely appreciates the decision to release Mr al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
"His interest and involvement continued after the trial after visiting Mr al Megrahi in prison.
"The decision to release him now, and allow him to return to Libya, is one which is therefore in line with his wishes."
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity, called on the authorities in Scotland to "take responsibility" for reviewing Megrahi’s conviction.
In a letter to the media, Dr Swire said he was "delighted" that Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, had been freed.
He said: "Let us stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi’s release.
"The public’s knowledge of the shifty dealings surrounding the prisoner transfer agreement should help to swell demand for objective assessment of the Megrahi case."
[Notes by RB:
1. It is disingenuous in the extreme for Jack Straw to claim that the debate over a deal between the UK and Libyan Governments over Abdelbaset Megrahi is absurd because he was in fact repatriated, not under the prisoner transfer agreement, but through compassionate release.
The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" (and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement) was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that Downing Street and the Foreign Office belatedly realised that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh -- and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.
2. The letter from Dr Swire that is referred to in The Herald's article reads as follows:]
Lockerbie: the truth must be known
Before the Lockerbie trial, brokered by Nelson Mandela, had begun, I believed that it would reveal the guilt of the two Libyans in the murder of my daughter and all those others.
I have always believed that we should look for how something of benefit to the world could be somehow squeezed out of the appalling spectacle of brutal mass murder laid before us on those gentle Scottish hills. From before the Lockerbie trial, whilst still believing in Megrahi's guilt, I hoped even then that commercial links could be rebuilt between Libya and Britain for the benefit of both in the future. That was one of the reasons I went to talk to Gaddafi in 1991. It seemed that Libya's 5 million people with that country's immense oil wealth could mesh well with the many skilled people available among the 5 million population of Scotland.
What I heard at Zeist converted me to believing that the Libyan pair were in fact not involved in the atrocity after all. I remembered Nelson's comment at the time when a trial was agreed "No one country should be complainant, prosecutor and Judge". Yet under Clinton's presidency, the composition of the court had been altered so that Nelson's warning had been ignored. It was President Clinton too who told us all to realise 'its the economy, stupid.' But the UK, in the form of Scottish law, was now to exclude any international element, and the methods used to assemble the evidence revealed that the UK/US collusion was so close that it was safe to consider that alliance as Nelson's 'one country' also.
These matters are political and we have no expertise in that field, which appears distasteful to many. I do feel though that Lord Mandelson's disingenuous comments on the issue of the 'Prisoner Transfer Agreement' should lead him to resign (yet again).
More than 20 years later, we, the relatives, are still denied a full inquiry into the real issues for us - Who was behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher government of the day ignore all the warnings they got before Lockerbie? Why did they refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of this inquiry? Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in concealed for 12 years so that the trial court did not hear of it till after verdict? Why were we constantly subjected to the ignominy of being denied the truth as to why our families were not protected in what even our crippled FAI (crippled because it too was denied the information about Heathrow) found to have been a preventable disaster?
Let us stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi's release, I for one am delighted that a man I now consider innocent because of the evidence I was allowed to hear at Zeist is at home with his family at last. Let there be a responsible replacement immediately for the appeal a dying man understandably abandoned to ensure his release. Scotland should now take responsibility for reviewing a verdict which her own SCCRC already distrusts.The public's knowledge of the shifty dealings surrounding the 'Prisoner Transfer Agreement' should help to swell demand for objective assessment of the Megrahi case. Overturning the verdict would open the way for a proper international inquiry into why Lockerbie was allowed to happen, who was really behind it, as well as how the verdict came to be reached.
Let us turn our attention now, please, at last to the question of why we the relatives have been denied our rights to know who really murdered their families, and why those precious lives were not protected.
Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, has described as "absurd" suggestions that trade deals had anything to do with the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Mr Straw was forced into the denial after letters leaked to a Sunday newspaper appeared to show that he had backed away from efforts to stipulate that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi should be exempt from a prisoner transfer agreement signed with Libya in 2007.
His comments were made as the father of one of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am 103 said it was time "to stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi’s release" and Nelson Mandela sent a letter of support to the Scottish Government. (...)
Mr Straw said: "The implication that, somehow or other, we have done some back-door deal in order to release Mr Megrahi is simply nonsense.
"What makes this whole debate absurd now is that Mr Megrahi was not released under the prisoner transfer agreement."
Mr Straw admitted that in return for Libya abandoning its nuclear weapons programme there were moves to "establish wider relations including trade", but added: "the suggestion that at any stage there was some kind of back-door deal done over Mr Megrahi’s transfer because of trade is simply untrue". (...)
Nelson Mandela played a central role in facilitating the handover of Megrahi to the United Nations so he could stand trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands, and subsequently visited him in Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow.
His backing emerged in a letter sent by Professor Jake Gerwel, chairperson of the Mandela Foundation.
He said: "Mr Mandela sincerely appreciates the decision to release Mr al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
"His interest and involvement continued after the trial after visiting Mr al Megrahi in prison.
"The decision to release him now, and allow him to return to Libya, is one which is therefore in line with his wishes."
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity, called on the authorities in Scotland to "take responsibility" for reviewing Megrahi’s conviction.
In a letter to the media, Dr Swire said he was "delighted" that Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, had been freed.
He said: "Let us stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi’s release.
"The public’s knowledge of the shifty dealings surrounding the prisoner transfer agreement should help to swell demand for objective assessment of the Megrahi case."
[Notes by RB:
1. It is disingenuous in the extreme for Jack Straw to claim that the debate over a deal between the UK and Libyan Governments over Abdelbaset Megrahi is absurd because he was in fact repatriated, not under the prisoner transfer agreement, but through compassionate release.
The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" (and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement) was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that Downing Street and the Foreign Office belatedly realised that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh -- and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.
2. The letter from Dr Swire that is referred to in The Herald's article reads as follows:]
Lockerbie: the truth must be known
Before the Lockerbie trial, brokered by Nelson Mandela, had begun, I believed that it would reveal the guilt of the two Libyans in the murder of my daughter and all those others.
I have always believed that we should look for how something of benefit to the world could be somehow squeezed out of the appalling spectacle of brutal mass murder laid before us on those gentle Scottish hills. From before the Lockerbie trial, whilst still believing in Megrahi's guilt, I hoped even then that commercial links could be rebuilt between Libya and Britain for the benefit of both in the future. That was one of the reasons I went to talk to Gaddafi in 1991. It seemed that Libya's 5 million people with that country's immense oil wealth could mesh well with the many skilled people available among the 5 million population of Scotland.
What I heard at Zeist converted me to believing that the Libyan pair were in fact not involved in the atrocity after all. I remembered Nelson's comment at the time when a trial was agreed "No one country should be complainant, prosecutor and Judge". Yet under Clinton's presidency, the composition of the court had been altered so that Nelson's warning had been ignored. It was President Clinton too who told us all to realise 'its the economy, stupid.' But the UK, in the form of Scottish law, was now to exclude any international element, and the methods used to assemble the evidence revealed that the UK/US collusion was so close that it was safe to consider that alliance as Nelson's 'one country' also.
These matters are political and we have no expertise in that field, which appears distasteful to many. I do feel though that Lord Mandelson's disingenuous comments on the issue of the 'Prisoner Transfer Agreement' should lead him to resign (yet again).
More than 20 years later, we, the relatives, are still denied a full inquiry into the real issues for us - Who was behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher government of the day ignore all the warnings they got before Lockerbie? Why did they refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of this inquiry? Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in concealed for 12 years so that the trial court did not hear of it till after verdict? Why were we constantly subjected to the ignominy of being denied the truth as to why our families were not protected in what even our crippled FAI (crippled because it too was denied the information about Heathrow) found to have been a preventable disaster?
Let us stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi's release, I for one am delighted that a man I now consider innocent because of the evidence I was allowed to hear at Zeist is at home with his family at last. Let there be a responsible replacement immediately for the appeal a dying man understandably abandoned to ensure his release. Scotland should now take responsibility for reviewing a verdict which her own SCCRC already distrusts.The public's knowledge of the shifty dealings surrounding the 'Prisoner Transfer Agreement' should help to swell demand for objective assessment of the Megrahi case. Overturning the verdict would open the way for a proper international inquiry into why Lockerbie was allowed to happen, who was really behind it, as well as how the verdict came to be reached.
Let us turn our attention now, please, at last to the question of why we the relatives have been denied our rights to know who really murdered their families, and why those precious lives were not protected.
The latest Scottish opinion poll
[The following opinion poll results are from a YouGov survey, conducted at the height of the furore over the SNP Government's repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi, published in the Scottish edition of today's Mail on Sunday. They show support for the Scottish National Party increasing from the previous poll only two days before. What follows is taken from a post on the UK Polling Report blog.]
[T]here is yet another Scottish poll, this time from Yougov in the Mail on Sunday’s Scottish edition. The poll [of 1183 adults] was conducted between the 26th and 28th August, so hot on the heels of the last YouGov Scotland poll, which was done between the 24th and 26th. The voting intention figures, each with changes from the previous poll 2 days before, are as follows:
Westminster: CON 20%(+1), LAB 30%(-3), LDEM 18%(+2), SNP 26%(+1)
Holyrood Constituency: CON 16%(nc), LAB 27%(-4), LDEM 16%(nc), SNP 34%(+1)
Holyrood Regional: CON 16%(-1), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 16%(+1), SNP 30%(+3)
It’s a very short time span since the previous poll, but then, it’s also a fast moving story. It’s perfectly possible that all these differences are just variations within the margin of error. Alternatively, it could be a bit of a shift back towards the SNP as debate over the al-Megrahi release continues.
[T]here is yet another Scottish poll, this time from Yougov in the Mail on Sunday’s Scottish edition. The poll [of 1183 adults] was conducted between the 26th and 28th August, so hot on the heels of the last YouGov Scotland poll, which was done between the 24th and 26th. The voting intention figures, each with changes from the previous poll 2 days before, are as follows:
Westminster: CON 20%(+1), LAB 30%(-3), LDEM 18%(+2), SNP 26%(+1)
Holyrood Constituency: CON 16%(nc), LAB 27%(-4), LDEM 16%(nc), SNP 34%(+1)
Holyrood Regional: CON 16%(-1), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 16%(+1), SNP 30%(+3)
It’s a very short time span since the previous poll, but then, it’s also a fast moving story. It’s perfectly possible that all these differences are just variations within the margin of error. Alternatively, it could be a bit of a shift back towards the SNP as debate over the al-Megrahi release continues.
No ‘Hero’s Welcome’ in Libya
[What follows is the text of an opinion piece in The New York Times by Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi, the Colonel's son and, so some speculate, his likely successor.]
Contrary to reports in the Western press, there was no “hero’s welcome” for Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi when he returned to Libya earlier this month.
There was not in fact any official reception for the return of Mr Megrahi, who had been convicted and imprisoned in Scotland for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The strong reactions to these misperceptions must not be allowed to impair the improvements in a mutually beneficial relationship between Libya and the West.
When I arrived at the airport with Mr Megrahi, there was not a single government official present. State and foreign news media were also barred from the event. If you were watching Al Jazeera, the Arabic news network, at the time the plane landed, you would have heard its correspondent complain that he was not allowed by Libyan authorities to go to the airport to cover Mr Megrahi’s arrival.
It is true that there were a few hundred people present. But most of them were members of Mr Megrahi’s large tribe, extended families being an important element in Libyan society. They had no official invitation, but it was hardly possible to prevent them from coming.
Coincidentally, the day Mr Megrahi landed was also the very day of the annual Libyan Youth Day, and many participants came to the airport after seeing coverage of Mr Megrahi’s release on British television. But this was not planned. Indeed, we sat in the plane on the tarmac until the police brought the crowd to order.
So, from the Libyan point of view, the reception given to Mr Megrahi was low-key. Had it been an official welcome, there would have been tens if not hundreds of thousands of people at the airport. And the event would have been carried live on state television.
At the same time, I was extremely happy for Mr Megrahi’s return. Convinced of his innocence, I have worked for years on his behalf, raising the issue at every meeting with British officials.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair recently confirmed my statement that Libya put Mr Megrahi’s release on the table at every meeting. He also made it clear that there was never any agreement by the British government to release Mr Megrahi as part of some quid pro quo on trade — a statement I can confirm.
Mr Megrahi was released for the right reasons. The Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, freed Mr Megrahi, who is dying of cancer, on compassionate grounds. Mr MacAskill’s courageous decision demonstrates to the world that both justice and compassion can be achieved by people of good will. Despite the uproar over the release, others agree. A recent survey of Scottish lawyers showed that a majority of those surveyed agreed with the secretary’s decision.
It’s worth pointing out that we Libyans are far from the only ones who believe that Mr Megrahi is innocent of this terrible crime. In June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission determined that a “miscarriage of justice” may have occurred and referred the case to the High Court. A retired Scottish police officer who worked on the case has signed a statement saying that evidence was fabricated. The credibility of a key witness, a shopkeeper in Malta, has subsequently been disputed by the Scottish judge who presided in the review. Even the spokesman of a family group of Lockerbie victims has said that the group was not satisfied that the verdict in the Megrahi case was correct.
What’s more, although we Libyans believe that Mr Megrahi is innocent, we agreed in a civil action to pay the families of the victims, and we have done so. In fact, we could have withheld the final tranche of payments last year, because the United States had not kept its part of the deal, to fully normalize relations within the formally agreed-upon time frame. Still, we made the final payment as an act of good will.
The truth about Lockerbie will come out one day. Had Mr Megrahi been able to appeal his case through the court, we believe that his conviction would have been overturned. Mr Megrahi made the difficult decision to give up his promising appeal in order to spend his last days with his family.
Libya has worked with Britain, the United States and other Western countries for more than five years now to defuse the tensions of earlier times, and to promote trade, security and improved relations. I believe that clarifying the facts in the Lockerbie case can only further assist this process.
I once again offer my deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of those lost in the Lockerbie tragedy. They deserve justice. The best way to get it is through a public inquiry. We need to know the truth.
Contrary to reports in the Western press, there was no “hero’s welcome” for Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi when he returned to Libya earlier this month.
There was not in fact any official reception for the return of Mr Megrahi, who had been convicted and imprisoned in Scotland for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The strong reactions to these misperceptions must not be allowed to impair the improvements in a mutually beneficial relationship between Libya and the West.
When I arrived at the airport with Mr Megrahi, there was not a single government official present. State and foreign news media were also barred from the event. If you were watching Al Jazeera, the Arabic news network, at the time the plane landed, you would have heard its correspondent complain that he was not allowed by Libyan authorities to go to the airport to cover Mr Megrahi’s arrival.
It is true that there were a few hundred people present. But most of them were members of Mr Megrahi’s large tribe, extended families being an important element in Libyan society. They had no official invitation, but it was hardly possible to prevent them from coming.
Coincidentally, the day Mr Megrahi landed was also the very day of the annual Libyan Youth Day, and many participants came to the airport after seeing coverage of Mr Megrahi’s release on British television. But this was not planned. Indeed, we sat in the plane on the tarmac until the police brought the crowd to order.
So, from the Libyan point of view, the reception given to Mr Megrahi was low-key. Had it been an official welcome, there would have been tens if not hundreds of thousands of people at the airport. And the event would have been carried live on state television.
At the same time, I was extremely happy for Mr Megrahi’s return. Convinced of his innocence, I have worked for years on his behalf, raising the issue at every meeting with British officials.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair recently confirmed my statement that Libya put Mr Megrahi’s release on the table at every meeting. He also made it clear that there was never any agreement by the British government to release Mr Megrahi as part of some quid pro quo on trade — a statement I can confirm.
Mr Megrahi was released for the right reasons. The Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, freed Mr Megrahi, who is dying of cancer, on compassionate grounds. Mr MacAskill’s courageous decision demonstrates to the world that both justice and compassion can be achieved by people of good will. Despite the uproar over the release, others agree. A recent survey of Scottish lawyers showed that a majority of those surveyed agreed with the secretary’s decision.
It’s worth pointing out that we Libyans are far from the only ones who believe that Mr Megrahi is innocent of this terrible crime. In June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission determined that a “miscarriage of justice” may have occurred and referred the case to the High Court. A retired Scottish police officer who worked on the case has signed a statement saying that evidence was fabricated. The credibility of a key witness, a shopkeeper in Malta, has subsequently been disputed by the Scottish judge who presided in the review. Even the spokesman of a family group of Lockerbie victims has said that the group was not satisfied that the verdict in the Megrahi case was correct.
What’s more, although we Libyans believe that Mr Megrahi is innocent, we agreed in a civil action to pay the families of the victims, and we have done so. In fact, we could have withheld the final tranche of payments last year, because the United States had not kept its part of the deal, to fully normalize relations within the formally agreed-upon time frame. Still, we made the final payment as an act of good will.
The truth about Lockerbie will come out one day. Had Mr Megrahi been able to appeal his case through the court, we believe that his conviction would have been overturned. Mr Megrahi made the difficult decision to give up his promising appeal in order to spend his last days with his family.
Libya has worked with Britain, the United States and other Western countries for more than five years now to defuse the tensions of earlier times, and to promote trade, security and improved relations. I believe that clarifying the facts in the Lockerbie case can only further assist this process.
I once again offer my deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of those lost in the Lockerbie tragedy. They deserve justice. The best way to get it is through a public inquiry. We need to know the truth.
Mandela supports MacAskill decision
[This is the headline over the lead story by Campbell Gunn in today's edition of The Sunday Post, Scotland's largest-circulation Sunday newspaper. It reads as follows:]
Nelson Mandela has backed Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
The former South African president has retired from public life and no longer wishes to be involved in public issues.
But on Friday he sent a letter via his Nelson Mandela Foundation to the Scottish Government supporting the decision made on compassionate grounds by the Justice Secretary.
The move will be welcomed by the Scottish Government, which has consistently claimed, while there has been heavy criticism from the United States over the release, the majority of world opinion is supportive.
It will also ease the pressure that has been building on Mr MacAskill.
Professor Jakes Gerwel, chairman of the Mandela Foundation, said in the letter, “Mr Mandela appreciates the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
“Mr Mandela played a central role in facilitating the handover of Mr al-Megrahi and his fellow accused to the United Nations in order for them to stand trial under Scottish Law in the Netherlands.”
“His interest and involvement continued after the trial,” said the professor.
“The decision to release him now, and allow him to return to Libya, is one which is in line with his wishes.”
Mr Mandela visited al-Megrahi while he was in Barlinnie Prison, in June 2002, spending an hour with him and calling for him to be moved to a Muslim country.
He also played a key role in persuading Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to hand over al-Megrahi and his co-accused Khalifa Fhima for trial in a neutral country for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, which killed 270 people.
President Mandela helped resolve the dispute between Libya, the US and the UK over bringing to trial the two Libyans indicted for the Lockerbie bombing.
In 1992, Mandela approached president George Bush with a proposal to have the two indicted Libyans tried in a third country and suggested South Africa. Bush was in favour but the plan was rejected by British prime minister John Major.
However, when the idea was suggested to Tony Blair, after he became PM, it was accepted and Holland was chosen as the neutral venue for the trial.
Yesterday, al-Megrahi said he was determined to clear his name and claimed a full inquiry into the events surrounding Lockerbie would help families of the victims discover the truth behind the bombing.
First Minister Alex Salmond has welcomed Mr Mandela’s support.
“The overall international reaction shows strong support for the decision to show compassion to a dying man, according to the due process of Scots Law,” he said.
“And that is clearly the view of the person who has demonstrated that quality above all others over the last generation.”
[The same newspaper carries a report on the statement by Eddie MacKechnie, Abdelbaset Megrahi's former solicitor, noted on 24 August on this blog. As far as I can see, it is the only newspaper to have picked it up.
Other newspapers -- for example The Sunday Herald, whose story can be read here -- are still harping on about the medical evidence underpinning Kenny MacAskill's decision. As I wrote on 28 August:
'The position is quite simply this. Specialist oncologists simply are not prepared to tell a patient, or anyone else who may want to know, how long that person has to live. They regard their function as being to provide or advise on the best care and treatment for the patient for however long or short a period he may have left to him. This means that if a patient, or anyone else with a need to know, insists on being provided with a time scale, this must be provided, not by the cancer specialists, but by the ordinary general practitioner attending the patient who must do his best, with his overall knowledge of the patient and the progess of the disease, to translate the specialists’ views into weeks or months.
'That is precisely what has happened in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. The newspapers and politicians who have sought to read something sinister and underhand into the medical aspects of Kenny MacAskill’s decision should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly that vocal Labour MSP who is himself a medical practitioner.']
Nelson Mandela has backed Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
The former South African president has retired from public life and no longer wishes to be involved in public issues.
But on Friday he sent a letter via his Nelson Mandela Foundation to the Scottish Government supporting the decision made on compassionate grounds by the Justice Secretary.
The move will be welcomed by the Scottish Government, which has consistently claimed, while there has been heavy criticism from the United States over the release, the majority of world opinion is supportive.
It will also ease the pressure that has been building on Mr MacAskill.
Professor Jakes Gerwel, chairman of the Mandela Foundation, said in the letter, “Mr Mandela appreciates the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
“Mr Mandela played a central role in facilitating the handover of Mr al-Megrahi and his fellow accused to the United Nations in order for them to stand trial under Scottish Law in the Netherlands.”
“His interest and involvement continued after the trial,” said the professor.
“The decision to release him now, and allow him to return to Libya, is one which is in line with his wishes.”
Mr Mandela visited al-Megrahi while he was in Barlinnie Prison, in June 2002, spending an hour with him and calling for him to be moved to a Muslim country.
He also played a key role in persuading Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to hand over al-Megrahi and his co-accused Khalifa Fhima for trial in a neutral country for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, which killed 270 people.
President Mandela helped resolve the dispute between Libya, the US and the UK over bringing to trial the two Libyans indicted for the Lockerbie bombing.
In 1992, Mandela approached president George Bush with a proposal to have the two indicted Libyans tried in a third country and suggested South Africa. Bush was in favour but the plan was rejected by British prime minister John Major.
However, when the idea was suggested to Tony Blair, after he became PM, it was accepted and Holland was chosen as the neutral venue for the trial.
Yesterday, al-Megrahi said he was determined to clear his name and claimed a full inquiry into the events surrounding Lockerbie would help families of the victims discover the truth behind the bombing.
First Minister Alex Salmond has welcomed Mr Mandela’s support.
“The overall international reaction shows strong support for the decision to show compassion to a dying man, according to the due process of Scots Law,” he said.
“And that is clearly the view of the person who has demonstrated that quality above all others over the last generation.”
[The same newspaper carries a report on the statement by Eddie MacKechnie, Abdelbaset Megrahi's former solicitor, noted on 24 August on this blog. As far as I can see, it is the only newspaper to have picked it up.
Other newspapers -- for example The Sunday Herald, whose story can be read here -- are still harping on about the medical evidence underpinning Kenny MacAskill's decision. As I wrote on 28 August:
'The position is quite simply this. Specialist oncologists simply are not prepared to tell a patient, or anyone else who may want to know, how long that person has to live. They regard their function as being to provide or advise on the best care and treatment for the patient for however long or short a period he may have left to him. This means that if a patient, or anyone else with a need to know, insists on being provided with a time scale, this must be provided, not by the cancer specialists, but by the ordinary general practitioner attending the patient who must do his best, with his overall knowledge of the patient and the progess of the disease, to translate the specialists’ views into weeks or months.
'That is precisely what has happened in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. The newspapers and politicians who have sought to read something sinister and underhand into the medical aspects of Kenny MacAskill’s decision should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly that vocal Labour MSP who is himself a medical practitioner.']
Saturday, 29 August 2009
What do US cops know about justice?
[This is the headline over Ian Bell's article in tomorrow's edition of The Sunday Herald. The last section reads as follows:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds with three months left to live. The staged celebrations upon his return to Libya anger some people. His appeal against conviction - feasible even for a dead man, but pointless - has already been withdrawn, angering others. Some are desperate for the truth; others suspect a political fix. But America's fury appears boundless.
Consider that. Scottish jurisdiction is not disputed. Nor is it news to Washington that Tony Blair stitched up a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya's Colonel Gaddafi in 2007 when only one Libyan was held in Britain. Nevertheless, Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, rejects that mechanism explicitly. Yet suddenly the whereabouts of the prisoner in the last dozen miserable weeks of his life matters hugely. And the word compassion causes unbridled anger.
Scotland is treated to the thoughts, none kind, of Obama, Hillary Clinton and that dying paragon, Ted Kennedy. MacAskill and Alex Salmond don't raise the possibility that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe. No-one mentions the many efforts expended by Kennedy on behalf of Irish Republicanism.
No-one asks how many Americans were convicted after the USS Vincennes brought down Iran Air flight 655 in 1986 with the loss of 290 lives. Guantanamo, Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, the carnage in Afghanistan: Scotland's government remains circumspect.
Then a cop intervenes. I say "cop"; I mean Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, a man with a shaky grasp of the Scottish system but every confidence in his all-American right to give a foreign government a dressing-down. He's "outraged", says his letter to Caledonia. "Your action makes a mockery of the rule of law," he tells MacAskill. "Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world".
There is little comfort, though, for anyone still harbouring illusions over American attitudes to American power. So now the head of the FBI, an institution with a fascinating history in the civil rights field, is laying down his law to someone else's democracy, to the country that gave the US many of the notions that fleshed out its constitution? Let's say we'll cope.
In other parts, predictably, the Scottish cringe is at work. MacAskill has outraged "the world" ("To reprieve a seriously ill prisoner is an act of humanity" - Frankfurter Allgemeine, Germany). Tourists will scorn us; whisky sales will suffer; and Jack McConnell will have to do penance for our "shame". In other words, we will lose the essential friendship of America thanks to the unforgiveable crime of compassion.
What is that sort of friendship worth? And what sort of friendship is it that loads rights on one side and responsibilities, defined unilaterally, on the other? Does it occur to no-one that some of America's actions have looked rather more heinous lately, and certainly more costly to human life, than a single ministerial decision? All that stirring talk of democracy sounds a little hollow, and not for the first time.
MacAskill might be wrong, and those of us who have agreed with him might turn out to be wrong. I happen to believe Obama is wrong about Afghanistan: how many lives lost so far? But if the minister has erred, what is the nature of the error? You could say - though I do not - that he has been played for a dupe by London and Washington. The motives at work in the larger game stand little scrutiny, as usual. But MacAskill has made a moral choice: imagine. Those can go wrong.
Megrahi, convicted of mass murder, may enjoy a startling recovery. If that happens the justice secretary and several doctors will look very stupid.
They will not become culpable, however, and they will not have deserved the insults that flow from the likes of Mueller. We do things differently. In this regard, I'm certain, we do them better.
It is America's curse that it finds the possibility inconceivable.
[An opinion piece headed "MacAskill’s crime wasn’t to release a murderer but to disobey America" in The Sunday Herald by writer and lawyer Paul Laverty contains the following sentence:
'I suspect MacAskill is castigated not so much for the release a dying man, but because he has refused to obey. US politicians expect their UK and Scottish counterparts to take up automatic poodle position just as Straw and Blair have always done. True to form New Labour in Scotland do the same; they seem more concerned with parochial point scoring or whisky sales in the US than any genuine concern for the understandable feelings of hurt on part of the families of the victims. But the great tragedy revealed by this circus is how we have collectively sacrificed our critical faculties, our sense of history, and replaced them with spineless humiliating subservience to the powerful. MacAskill's decision is a brave exception, but it is a disgrace to see him so cornered while the nauseating hypocrisy of the US goes virtually unexamined.'
An article headed "Freeing the Lockerbie bomber was the right thing to do" on the US website The Presbyterian Outlook by a Florida pastor shows that American reaction to Megrahi's repatriation is not unanimously hostile.
This is also demonstrated in two articles on the Antiwar website entitled "From My Lai to Lockerbie" and "Apologies, Anger, and Apathy" both of which can be read here.]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds with three months left to live. The staged celebrations upon his return to Libya anger some people. His appeal against conviction - feasible even for a dead man, but pointless - has already been withdrawn, angering others. Some are desperate for the truth; others suspect a political fix. But America's fury appears boundless.
Consider that. Scottish jurisdiction is not disputed. Nor is it news to Washington that Tony Blair stitched up a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya's Colonel Gaddafi in 2007 when only one Libyan was held in Britain. Nevertheless, Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, rejects that mechanism explicitly. Yet suddenly the whereabouts of the prisoner in the last dozen miserable weeks of his life matters hugely. And the word compassion causes unbridled anger.
Scotland is treated to the thoughts, none kind, of Obama, Hillary Clinton and that dying paragon, Ted Kennedy. MacAskill and Alex Salmond don't raise the possibility that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe. No-one mentions the many efforts expended by Kennedy on behalf of Irish Republicanism.
No-one asks how many Americans were convicted after the USS Vincennes brought down Iran Air flight 655 in 1986 with the loss of 290 lives. Guantanamo, Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, the carnage in Afghanistan: Scotland's government remains circumspect.
Then a cop intervenes. I say "cop"; I mean Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, a man with a shaky grasp of the Scottish system but every confidence in his all-American right to give a foreign government a dressing-down. He's "outraged", says his letter to Caledonia. "Your action makes a mockery of the rule of law," he tells MacAskill. "Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world".
There is little comfort, though, for anyone still harbouring illusions over American attitudes to American power. So now the head of the FBI, an institution with a fascinating history in the civil rights field, is laying down his law to someone else's democracy, to the country that gave the US many of the notions that fleshed out its constitution? Let's say we'll cope.
In other parts, predictably, the Scottish cringe is at work. MacAskill has outraged "the world" ("To reprieve a seriously ill prisoner is an act of humanity" - Frankfurter Allgemeine, Germany). Tourists will scorn us; whisky sales will suffer; and Jack McConnell will have to do penance for our "shame". In other words, we will lose the essential friendship of America thanks to the unforgiveable crime of compassion.
What is that sort of friendship worth? And what sort of friendship is it that loads rights on one side and responsibilities, defined unilaterally, on the other? Does it occur to no-one that some of America's actions have looked rather more heinous lately, and certainly more costly to human life, than a single ministerial decision? All that stirring talk of democracy sounds a little hollow, and not for the first time.
MacAskill might be wrong, and those of us who have agreed with him might turn out to be wrong. I happen to believe Obama is wrong about Afghanistan: how many lives lost so far? But if the minister has erred, what is the nature of the error? You could say - though I do not - that he has been played for a dupe by London and Washington. The motives at work in the larger game stand little scrutiny, as usual. But MacAskill has made a moral choice: imagine. Those can go wrong.
Megrahi, convicted of mass murder, may enjoy a startling recovery. If that happens the justice secretary and several doctors will look very stupid.
They will not become culpable, however, and they will not have deserved the insults that flow from the likes of Mueller. We do things differently. In this regard, I'm certain, we do them better.
It is America's curse that it finds the possibility inconceivable.
[An opinion piece headed "MacAskill’s crime wasn’t to release a murderer but to disobey America" in The Sunday Herald by writer and lawyer Paul Laverty contains the following sentence:
'I suspect MacAskill is castigated not so much for the release a dying man, but because he has refused to obey. US politicians expect their UK and Scottish counterparts to take up automatic poodle position just as Straw and Blair have always done. True to form New Labour in Scotland do the same; they seem more concerned with parochial point scoring or whisky sales in the US than any genuine concern for the understandable feelings of hurt on part of the families of the victims. But the great tragedy revealed by this circus is how we have collectively sacrificed our critical faculties, our sense of history, and replaced them with spineless humiliating subservience to the powerful. MacAskill's decision is a brave exception, but it is a disgrace to see him so cornered while the nauseating hypocrisy of the US goes virtually unexamined.'
An article headed "Freeing the Lockerbie bomber was the right thing to do" on the US website The Presbyterian Outlook by a Florida pastor shows that American reaction to Megrahi's repatriation is not unanimously hostile.
This is also demonstrated in two articles on the Antiwar website entitled "From My Lai to Lockerbie" and "Apologies, Anger, and Apathy" both of which can be read here.]
Megrahi's lawyer to release dossier 'proving' his innocence
[The following are excerpts from an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Chief Reporter Andrew Alderson.]
Tony Kelly, a Scottish solicitor, said that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, who returned to his homeland ten days ago after being released from prison on compassionate grounds, remains determined to show his guilty verdict was unjust.
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, withdrew his second appeal against conviction just two days before he was allowed to return to Libya.
Those close to him say he did so reluctantly because he was convinced it would improve his chances of being freed from a Scottish jail, eight years after being convicted of murdering 270 people.
The disclosure will further enrage critics of the decision to free Megrahi, the only man convicted of the atrocity.
It also raises the likelihood of further embarrassment for Scotland over the handling of the original trial and it could lead to fresh questions over whether Megrahi was innocent and, if so, who was really behind the bombing.
Mr Kelly intends to fly to Tripoli, the Libyan capital, within days to receive instructions from his client.
Mr Kelly said: "Mr Megrahi wants all the information that has been gathered made public at some point.
"But how and when this takes place is ultimately a matter for him to decide. It is my intention to travel to Tripoli in the course of the next week or so to obtain his instructions on this."
The lawyer said he had been unable to discuss this issue with Megrahi after his release because things were "fraught" and the Libyan had been rushing to get a plane to his homeland.
Mr Kelly confirmed that Megrahi had left the relevant legal documents supporting his second appeal in the UK rather than take the evidence back with him to Libya.
Although Mr Kelly declined to reveal the new evidence which would have been presented to appeal hearing, it is understood that Megrahi's legal team had planned to list some 20 grounds why his conviction was unsafe, including:
*Potentially crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from Megrahi's first trial.
*One crucial witness was paid $2 million (£1.25 million) for his suspect evidence.
*Allegations of tampering with key evidence.
*American intelligence believed Iran – not Libya – was responsible for Lockerbie. (...)
Professor Robert Black QC, the lawyer who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said Megrahi had been caught in a difficult position prior to his release.
This was because Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was considering either releasing him on compassionate grounds or as part of a prisoner exchange programme between Britain and Libya that was first agreed by Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, two years ago.
Megrahi could have been released on compassionate ground without dropping his appeal – but he could not have been freed under the exchange programme if legal action was ongoing.
"Megrahi [had] reached a stage where he was so concerned to get back to Libya to die that he was prepared to do even unpalatable things [drop his appeal] to achieve that objective," Professor Black said.
He added that the new evidence relating to Megrahi's second appeal ought still to be made public – initially through a limited inquiry in Scotland into the entire Lockerbie criminal case.
He said there was also a chance of a larger EU or United Nations investigation into the case. (...)
Megrahi's second appeal had been permitted in 2007 after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Under Scottish law, provided the appeal was ongoing, Megrahi's family could have continued it after his death, but the legal action was halted by the appeal being withdrawn.
Tony Kelly, a Scottish solicitor, said that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, who returned to his homeland ten days ago after being released from prison on compassionate grounds, remains determined to show his guilty verdict was unjust.
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, withdrew his second appeal against conviction just two days before he was allowed to return to Libya.
Those close to him say he did so reluctantly because he was convinced it would improve his chances of being freed from a Scottish jail, eight years after being convicted of murdering 270 people.
The disclosure will further enrage critics of the decision to free Megrahi, the only man convicted of the atrocity.
It also raises the likelihood of further embarrassment for Scotland over the handling of the original trial and it could lead to fresh questions over whether Megrahi was innocent and, if so, who was really behind the bombing.
Mr Kelly intends to fly to Tripoli, the Libyan capital, within days to receive instructions from his client.
Mr Kelly said: "Mr Megrahi wants all the information that has been gathered made public at some point.
"But how and when this takes place is ultimately a matter for him to decide. It is my intention to travel to Tripoli in the course of the next week or so to obtain his instructions on this."
The lawyer said he had been unable to discuss this issue with Megrahi after his release because things were "fraught" and the Libyan had been rushing to get a plane to his homeland.
Mr Kelly confirmed that Megrahi had left the relevant legal documents supporting his second appeal in the UK rather than take the evidence back with him to Libya.
Although Mr Kelly declined to reveal the new evidence which would have been presented to appeal hearing, it is understood that Megrahi's legal team had planned to list some 20 grounds why his conviction was unsafe, including:
*Potentially crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from Megrahi's first trial.
*One crucial witness was paid $2 million (£1.25 million) for his suspect evidence.
*Allegations of tampering with key evidence.
*American intelligence believed Iran – not Libya – was responsible for Lockerbie. (...)
Professor Robert Black QC, the lawyer who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said Megrahi had been caught in a difficult position prior to his release.
This was because Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was considering either releasing him on compassionate grounds or as part of a prisoner exchange programme between Britain and Libya that was first agreed by Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, two years ago.
Megrahi could have been released on compassionate ground without dropping his appeal – but he could not have been freed under the exchange programme if legal action was ongoing.
"Megrahi [had] reached a stage where he was so concerned to get back to Libya to die that he was prepared to do even unpalatable things [drop his appeal] to achieve that objective," Professor Black said.
He added that the new evidence relating to Megrahi's second appeal ought still to be made public – initially through a limited inquiry in Scotland into the entire Lockerbie criminal case.
He said there was also a chance of a larger EU or United Nations investigation into the case. (...)
Megrahi's second appeal had been permitted in 2007 after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Under Scottish law, provided the appeal was ongoing, Megrahi's family could have continued it after his death, but the legal action was halted by the appeal being withdrawn.
Scottish church leaders urge free vote on Lockerbie issue
Leaders of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and the Catholic Church in Scotland have urged the Scottish Parliament to hold a free vote over whether it was right to send the Lockerbie bomber home on compassionate grounds.
The Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti and the Rev Ian Galloway from the Kirk, made the appeal before a debate scheduled for Wednesday 2 September 2009.
MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) are being invited to pass judgement on the decision, by the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to free terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The church leaders argue that the issue is a question of personal conscience because it depends on views of compassion which transcend party political considerations.
They say it would be wrong for party whips effectively to make the decisions on behalf of individual MSPs.
A spokesman for Archbishop Conti declared: "Parliament should be free to express itself on this issue without the interference of party whips."
Mr Galloway added: "I would hope it would not be decided by the parties, and MSPs would have the opportunity to reflect themselves on the issues."
Both men made it clear last week that they supported MacAskill's decision.
[The above is the text of a report on the Ekklesia website.]
The Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti and the Rev Ian Galloway from the Kirk, made the appeal before a debate scheduled for Wednesday 2 September 2009.
MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) are being invited to pass judgement on the decision, by the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to free terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The church leaders argue that the issue is a question of personal conscience because it depends on views of compassion which transcend party political considerations.
They say it would be wrong for party whips effectively to make the decisions on behalf of individual MSPs.
A spokesman for Archbishop Conti declared: "Parliament should be free to express itself on this issue without the interference of party whips."
Mr Galloway added: "I would hope it would not be decided by the parties, and MSPs would have the opportunity to reflect themselves on the issues."
Both men made it clear last week that they supported MacAskill's decision.
[The above is the text of a report on the Ekklesia website.]
'My first dream was to clear my name, not just for me ... but for the victims' families'
[The following are excerpts from The Herald’s interview with Abdelbaset Megrahi, transcribed by me from the print edition of the newspaper.]
[One] priority is to complete an autobiography. “The outline is ready and most of the material is ready too,” he says. “It will be a history of my life. I will raise some of the new areas of evidence from the case. It will surprise so many people. It might be shocking to some people as well.
“I hope to be able to read this book before I die. I need people to read it – for them to be the jury in my case to see what judgment they make when they finish reading it. I don’t need their hearts. I need their brains to think properly and make the right decision about my case.” (…)
[C]oncern has been growing about how he and his case will be presented at the 40th anniversary celebrations on Tuesday of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s ascent to power. But Megrahi will be spending the day and those following it in hospital.
“I have met the three Libyan doctors and they have insisted that I go to hospital and so I need to go there on Sunday,” he explains between bouts of coughing. (…)
One of the most pressing questions in recent days has been why Megrahi dropped his appeal. Those who believe in his conviction have used his move as confirmation of his guilt. Others feared he had been forced to do so. He had hoped that by making an application under the prisoner transfer agreement – which meant he had to drop the appeal – and on compassionate release grounds, he would increase his chances of returning to Libya. If the authorities said no to one application, they might grant another. “I made two applications. I decided that I should go for both options rather than just having one chance.”
Megrahi explains he has always been desperate to clear his name and was determined to pursue the appeal, but that ultimately it was far too slow and his desire to see his family and country before he died finally tipped the decision.
“People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn’t anything like this. (…) I would have to have waited another two years for the appeal which I doubt I would have had time to live that long. I called my lawyer and asked him to drop the appeal because of my family. It is all about my family.” (…)
He is also deeply critical of the Court … proceedings, where a special advocate was appointed to represent him because of the confidential nature of many pieces of evidence. [RB: This is in the context of the UK Foreign Secretary’s assertion of public interest immunity in respect of intelligence documents from a foreign state that the SCCRC concluded should have been handed over to Megrahi as containing material that could have assisted in his defence.]
“I met the special advocate just one time and when I met him he said he doesn’t know anything about the documents and he said that he is not entitled to get in touch with me once he does know about it. Where is the justice in that? He is meant to represent my interests yet he cannot talk to me about a piece of crucial evidence. It could be of benefit to me and to the case, but they just say it is top secret and I am not entitled to see it or to see him again.”
Is he angry? “Anyone receiving a wrongful verdict is bound to be angry in prison. I was not at all angry with the Scottish people. Maybe I am lucky because the Scottish people are so friendly.
“I remember when Dr Swire visited me. The governor and staff were very kind and supportive and tried to understand what I was feeling and the stress. They tried to help me. Even the prisoners in my section tried to help.
“The only thing was coming from a completely different culture and having a different mentality sometimes. My family are so happy that I am back. It is good to be back for home-cooked food. My big boss – my wife – is a very good cook.”
[The full interview is now available online on the heraldscotland website.]
[One] priority is to complete an autobiography. “The outline is ready and most of the material is ready too,” he says. “It will be a history of my life. I will raise some of the new areas of evidence from the case. It will surprise so many people. It might be shocking to some people as well.
“I hope to be able to read this book before I die. I need people to read it – for them to be the jury in my case to see what judgment they make when they finish reading it. I don’t need their hearts. I need their brains to think properly and make the right decision about my case.” (…)
[C]oncern has been growing about how he and his case will be presented at the 40th anniversary celebrations on Tuesday of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s ascent to power. But Megrahi will be spending the day and those following it in hospital.
“I have met the three Libyan doctors and they have insisted that I go to hospital and so I need to go there on Sunday,” he explains between bouts of coughing. (…)
One of the most pressing questions in recent days has been why Megrahi dropped his appeal. Those who believe in his conviction have used his move as confirmation of his guilt. Others feared he had been forced to do so. He had hoped that by making an application under the prisoner transfer agreement – which meant he had to drop the appeal – and on compassionate release grounds, he would increase his chances of returning to Libya. If the authorities said no to one application, they might grant another. “I made two applications. I decided that I should go for both options rather than just having one chance.”
Megrahi explains he has always been desperate to clear his name and was determined to pursue the appeal, but that ultimately it was far too slow and his desire to see his family and country before he died finally tipped the decision.
“People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn’t anything like this. (…) I would have to have waited another two years for the appeal which I doubt I would have had time to live that long. I called my lawyer and asked him to drop the appeal because of my family. It is all about my family.” (…)
He is also deeply critical of the Court … proceedings, where a special advocate was appointed to represent him because of the confidential nature of many pieces of evidence. [RB: This is in the context of the UK Foreign Secretary’s assertion of public interest immunity in respect of intelligence documents from a foreign state that the SCCRC concluded should have been handed over to Megrahi as containing material that could have assisted in his defence.]
“I met the special advocate just one time and when I met him he said he doesn’t know anything about the documents and he said that he is not entitled to get in touch with me once he does know about it. Where is the justice in that? He is meant to represent my interests yet he cannot talk to me about a piece of crucial evidence. It could be of benefit to me and to the case, but they just say it is top secret and I am not entitled to see it or to see him again.”
Is he angry? “Anyone receiving a wrongful verdict is bound to be angry in prison. I was not at all angry with the Scottish people. Maybe I am lucky because the Scottish people are so friendly.
“I remember when Dr Swire visited me. The governor and staff were very kind and supportive and tried to understand what I was feeling and the stress. They tried to help me. Even the prisoners in my section tried to help.
“The only thing was coming from a completely different culture and having a different mentality sometimes. My family are so happy that I am back. It is good to be back for home-cooked food. My big boss – my wife – is a very good cook.”
[The full interview is now available online on the heraldscotland website.]
Britain accused of breaking promise to US over Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi
[This is the headline over an article in The Times. It reads in part:]
Britain was accused last night of reneging on a promise to the United States that the Lockerbie bomber would serve his sentence in Scotland.
According to confidential correspondence obtained by The Times, ministers urged the Scottish government to consider returning Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya under a prisoner transfer deal in an apparent breach of a decade-old pledge.
A former Cabinet minister and two sources close to talks over the handover of suspects in 1999 told The Times that Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary, promised Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State at the time, that anyone found guilty would serve their sentence in Scotland, where the airliner exploded with the loss of 270 lives.
A senior US official said: “There was a clear understanding at the time of the trial that al-Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. In the 1990s the UK had the same view. It is up to them to explain what changed.” (...)
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, made reference to the deal — to which Libya also agreed — in a letter to Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, in June 2007. “Libya agreed prior to al-Megrahi’s trial that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing would serve their sentence in Scotland,” he wrote. Britain had reminded Libya of this through diplomatic channels, he said.
The position was reversed two years later when the Libyans applied for al-Megrahi’s transfer. Ivan Lewis, the Foreign Office minister, told the Scottish government that Britain had never provided a “definitive commitment” to the US because it had not wanted to “tie the hands of future governments”. (...)
Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Minister, said last week that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and Eric Holder, the Attorney-General, had told him Britain had given firm assurances that the sentence would be served in Scotland. By contrast, British ministers said they “gave no assurances to the US Government at the time”.
[Another article in The Times by Tom Baldwin headed "When truth about Britain's dealings with Libya turns out to be a mirage" gives further details and is well worth reading.
There can be absolutely no doubt that an undertaking was given that anyone convicted in the Lockerbie case would serve his sentence in Britain. In paragraph 4 of their joint letter of 24 August 1998 to the Secretary General of the United Nations (page 132 in this version), the Acting Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States said: "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom." This letter is referred to in, and formed the basis of, UN Security Council Resolution 1192 (1998) which provided the international warrant for the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist.]
Britain was accused last night of reneging on a promise to the United States that the Lockerbie bomber would serve his sentence in Scotland.
According to confidential correspondence obtained by The Times, ministers urged the Scottish government to consider returning Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya under a prisoner transfer deal in an apparent breach of a decade-old pledge.
A former Cabinet minister and two sources close to talks over the handover of suspects in 1999 told The Times that Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary, promised Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State at the time, that anyone found guilty would serve their sentence in Scotland, where the airliner exploded with the loss of 270 lives.
A senior US official said: “There was a clear understanding at the time of the trial that al-Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. In the 1990s the UK had the same view. It is up to them to explain what changed.” (...)
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, made reference to the deal — to which Libya also agreed — in a letter to Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, in June 2007. “Libya agreed prior to al-Megrahi’s trial that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing would serve their sentence in Scotland,” he wrote. Britain had reminded Libya of this through diplomatic channels, he said.
The position was reversed two years later when the Libyans applied for al-Megrahi’s transfer. Ivan Lewis, the Foreign Office minister, told the Scottish government that Britain had never provided a “definitive commitment” to the US because it had not wanted to “tie the hands of future governments”. (...)
Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Minister, said last week that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and Eric Holder, the Attorney-General, had told him Britain had given firm assurances that the sentence would be served in Scotland. By contrast, British ministers said they “gave no assurances to the US Government at the time”.
[Another article in The Times by Tom Baldwin headed "When truth about Britain's dealings with Libya turns out to be a mirage" gives further details and is well worth reading.
There can be absolutely no doubt that an undertaking was given that anyone convicted in the Lockerbie case would serve his sentence in Britain. In paragraph 4 of their joint letter of 24 August 1998 to the Secretary General of the United Nations (page 132 in this version), the Acting Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States said: "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom." This letter is referred to in, and formed the basis of, UN Security Council Resolution 1192 (1998) which provided the international warrant for the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist.]
It's the only way to act in a civilised world
"The civilised world recoils in disgust," wrote the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn, "from the early release of the only man convicted of the worst ever atrocity on British soil."
He was referring of course to the so-called Lockerbie bomber Mr Abdul al-Megrahi. And it was true. Only the other day I came across a fellow commuter waiting at the local railway station. He looked pale and edged away from me as though I were a victim of the swine flu.
"Are you all right? Can I do anything to help? Could I fetch you a glass of water? You look as if you have seen a ghost."
"If only I had," he replied with a shaking voice. "No. I am recoiling in disgust at the early release of the only person convicted of the worst atrocity ever committed on British soil."
In France, Germany or Japan, wherever you went in the civilised world the story was the same: everyone was recoiling in disgust at the news. A party held to celebrate England's victory in the Ashes broke up when the news of Mr al-Megrahi's release was announced. "And that was it," said one of the merry-makers. "The drinking and the singing came to an abrupt end. Flintoff's brilliant run-out of Ponting was forgotten and everyone began to recoil in disgust."
In the whole of the civilised world I could find only a single exception. He was trembling and clutching a copy of the Daily Mail.
"It's Megrahi isn't it?" I said. "You are recoiling in disgust along with the rest of the civilised world." "You can call me a recoiler all right," he replied, "but it's not Megrahi. It's that Richard Littlejohn. I am recoiling in disgust at the thought of the Daily Mail paying him £850,000 a year to write this disgraceful rubbish."
[From Richard Ingrams's Week in today's edition of The Independent.]
He was referring of course to the so-called Lockerbie bomber Mr Abdul al-Megrahi. And it was true. Only the other day I came across a fellow commuter waiting at the local railway station. He looked pale and edged away from me as though I were a victim of the swine flu.
"Are you all right? Can I do anything to help? Could I fetch you a glass of water? You look as if you have seen a ghost."
"If only I had," he replied with a shaking voice. "No. I am recoiling in disgust at the early release of the only person convicted of the worst atrocity ever committed on British soil."
In France, Germany or Japan, wherever you went in the civilised world the story was the same: everyone was recoiling in disgust at the news. A party held to celebrate England's victory in the Ashes broke up when the news of Mr al-Megrahi's release was announced. "And that was it," said one of the merry-makers. "The drinking and the singing came to an abrupt end. Flintoff's brilliant run-out of Ponting was forgotten and everyone began to recoil in disgust."
In the whole of the civilised world I could find only a single exception. He was trembling and clutching a copy of the Daily Mail.
"It's Megrahi isn't it?" I said. "You are recoiling in disgust along with the rest of the civilised world." "You can call me a recoiler all right," he replied, "but it's not Megrahi. It's that Richard Littlejohn. I am recoiling in disgust at the thought of the Daily Mail paying him £850,000 a year to write this disgraceful rubbish."
[From Richard Ingrams's Week in today's edition of The Independent.]
The truth never dies: Megrahi demands Lockerbie inquiry
[This is the headline over the report on The Herald's website by Ian Ferguson and Lucy Adams on their interview in Tripoli with Abdelbaset Megrahi. The following are excerpts. The full story can be read only in The Herald's print edition.]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has backed demands for a far-reaching public inquiry into the atrocity, saying the international community owes that to the families of the 270 victims.
In his first full-length interview since being released last week, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi told The Herald: "We all want to know the truth. The truth never dies."
Speaking from a hospital bed at his home in Tripoli, Megrahi talked extensively about his 10-year battle with the Scottish legal system and insisted he did not commit the worst terrorist act on mainland Britain. (...)
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, revealed he dropped his appeal against the conviction because he would not live to see its outcome and was desperate to return to his family. "It is all about my family," he said. "People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn't anything like this."
Instead, he put his faith in an appeal for compassion and said he was impressed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill during their meeting at Greenock Prison. "I thought he was a very decent man and he gave me a chance to say what I wanted and to express myself. He gave me the chance to make a presentation to him and he was very polite."
Megrahi is still determined to clear his name, partly through an autobiography, and also backs a public inquiry. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, has already called for such an investigation, but the UK Government seems firmly opposed.
"I support the issue of a public inquiry if it can be agreed. In my view, it is unfair to the victim's families that this has not been heard. It would help them to know the truth. As I said, the truth never dies.
"If the UK guaranteed it, I would be very supportive. I would want to help Dr Swire and the others with the documents I hold."
However, he added during an hour-long interview: "My feeling is that the UK Government will avoid a public inquiry because it would be a headache for them and the Americans and it would show how much the Americans have been involved and it would also cost them a lot of money which they may not want to spend because of the recession."
Megrahi was vitriolic about the Scottish police and legal system. "I was supposed to receive a fair trial and I was supposed to be subject to fair procedure. From day one of the trial there were delays and delays from the Crown Office. "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found at least six grounds of appeal and said there were six grounds on which it may have been a miscarriage of justice.
"From that point we asked the Crown for more documents and more papers. We received only some of them and they were still redacted. Most of the pages were black and I think this is shameful. They were supposed to give us everything."
Referring to the revelation seven years ago that some of the police notebooks recording the aftermath of the tragedy had been destroyed, Megrahi said: "It is very strange that the police forces that dealt with the case - and there were more than 400 officers - it is very strange that many of their notebooks went missing.
When one officer was asked about a notebook, he said it was destroyed. I find this very strange. Surely to destroy the notebooks of so many people is a decision that someone must have been made? This is not fair and is a big question mark about the case."
He said his priority now is to spend time with his five children, the youngest of whom is still of primary school age. "It was always my dream to come back to my family. It was in my prayers every day and when I received the diagnosis, even more so."
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has backed demands for a far-reaching public inquiry into the atrocity, saying the international community owes that to the families of the 270 victims.
In his first full-length interview since being released last week, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi told The Herald: "We all want to know the truth. The truth never dies."
Speaking from a hospital bed at his home in Tripoli, Megrahi talked extensively about his 10-year battle with the Scottish legal system and insisted he did not commit the worst terrorist act on mainland Britain. (...)
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, revealed he dropped his appeal against the conviction because he would not live to see its outcome and was desperate to return to his family. "It is all about my family," he said. "People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn't anything like this."
Instead, he put his faith in an appeal for compassion and said he was impressed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill during their meeting at Greenock Prison. "I thought he was a very decent man and he gave me a chance to say what I wanted and to express myself. He gave me the chance to make a presentation to him and he was very polite."
Megrahi is still determined to clear his name, partly through an autobiography, and also backs a public inquiry. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, has already called for such an investigation, but the UK Government seems firmly opposed.
"I support the issue of a public inquiry if it can be agreed. In my view, it is unfair to the victim's families that this has not been heard. It would help them to know the truth. As I said, the truth never dies.
"If the UK guaranteed it, I would be very supportive. I would want to help Dr Swire and the others with the documents I hold."
However, he added during an hour-long interview: "My feeling is that the UK Government will avoid a public inquiry because it would be a headache for them and the Americans and it would show how much the Americans have been involved and it would also cost them a lot of money which they may not want to spend because of the recession."
Megrahi was vitriolic about the Scottish police and legal system. "I was supposed to receive a fair trial and I was supposed to be subject to fair procedure. From day one of the trial there were delays and delays from the Crown Office. "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found at least six grounds of appeal and said there were six grounds on which it may have been a miscarriage of justice.
"From that point we asked the Crown for more documents and more papers. We received only some of them and they were still redacted. Most of the pages were black and I think this is shameful. They were supposed to give us everything."
Referring to the revelation seven years ago that some of the police notebooks recording the aftermath of the tragedy had been destroyed, Megrahi said: "It is very strange that the police forces that dealt with the case - and there were more than 400 officers - it is very strange that many of their notebooks went missing.
When one officer was asked about a notebook, he said it was destroyed. I find this very strange. Surely to destroy the notebooks of so many people is a decision that someone must have been made? This is not fair and is a big question mark about the case."
He said his priority now is to spend time with his five children, the youngest of whom is still of primary school age. "It was always my dream to come back to my family. It was in my prayers every day and when I received the diagnosis, even more so."
Friday, 28 August 2009
Ethics, idealism and a minister who got it right
After an initial outcry, it looks like most Scots agree with MacAskill’s decision …
By most accounts, the SNP administration should now be in its death throes. "Election threat over Lockerbie scandal" screamed a tabloid paper headline on Monday, "Salmond facing Holyrood revolt as backlash spreads". "Will the bomber topple Salmond?" queried another. (…)
The Labour opposition in Holyrood lost no time with a denunciation of both the decision to release and the actions of the justice secretary leading up to it. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats joined in with attacks of their own. (…)
More disconcerting was the initial reaction within Scotland. This, I felt, quite misread the public mood, both on the decision and the terms in which the justice secretary explained it. I certainly felt that, far from being repelled, the ethical setting struck a deep chord with the feelings of many Scots. (…)
At The Scotsman, our readers’ letters swung decisively through the week in favour of MacAskill’s decision to release, while our online poll went from a very narrow majority opposing his decision to 57 per cent in favour by yesterday afternoon. (…)
Having seen so many adopt the position of instantaneous attack and how opinion has moved from that initial reaction, I cannot but agree with that savvy observer, the writer Kenneth Roy, who said: “There is a growing sense that the media and the political opposition may have misjudged the mood and spirit of a considerable number of thinking Scots.” MacAskill articulated, if clumsily, a sense of ethics and even idealism. When the row dies down, we owe it to ourselves to remember this.
[The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Scotsman by Bill Jamieson, the newspaper’s Executive Editor. The Scotsman is fiercely opposed to the Scottish National Party government and all its works, which makes this article all the more significant and a pretty clear indication of the way the Scottish political wind is now blowing on the repatriation issue.
Opinion polls show varying results. A telephone poll commissioned by BBC News found that 60 per cent disapproved and 32 per cent approved of the decision.
A MORI poll for Reuters news agency found that 47 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the decision, while 40 per cent agreed or strongly agreed.]
By most accounts, the SNP administration should now be in its death throes. "Election threat over Lockerbie scandal" screamed a tabloid paper headline on Monday, "Salmond facing Holyrood revolt as backlash spreads". "Will the bomber topple Salmond?" queried another. (…)
The Labour opposition in Holyrood lost no time with a denunciation of both the decision to release and the actions of the justice secretary leading up to it. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats joined in with attacks of their own. (…)
More disconcerting was the initial reaction within Scotland. This, I felt, quite misread the public mood, both on the decision and the terms in which the justice secretary explained it. I certainly felt that, far from being repelled, the ethical setting struck a deep chord with the feelings of many Scots. (…)
At The Scotsman, our readers’ letters swung decisively through the week in favour of MacAskill’s decision to release, while our online poll went from a very narrow majority opposing his decision to 57 per cent in favour by yesterday afternoon. (…)
Having seen so many adopt the position of instantaneous attack and how opinion has moved from that initial reaction, I cannot but agree with that savvy observer, the writer Kenneth Roy, who said: “There is a growing sense that the media and the political opposition may have misjudged the mood and spirit of a considerable number of thinking Scots.” MacAskill articulated, if clumsily, a sense of ethics and even idealism. When the row dies down, we owe it to ourselves to remember this.
[The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Scotsman by Bill Jamieson, the newspaper’s Executive Editor. The Scotsman is fiercely opposed to the Scottish National Party government and all its works, which makes this article all the more significant and a pretty clear indication of the way the Scottish political wind is now blowing on the repatriation issue.
Opinion polls show varying results. A telephone poll commissioned by BBC News found that 60 per cent disapproved and 32 per cent approved of the decision.
A MORI poll for Reuters news agency found that 47 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the decision, while 40 per cent agreed or strongly agreed.]
Plumbing the depths
There is a distasteful and unseemly wrangle going on over whether Abdelbaset Megrahi has only three months to live and over the number and qualifications of the doctors who formed the view, and advised the cabinet Secretary for Justice, that this was the case. This downmarket tabloid bandwagon has been jumped on by a series of Scottish Labour and Tory politicians.
The Daily Express’s coverage of the issue can be read here and the Daily Mail’s here.
The Times today has a report which contains the following paragraphs:
‘It emerged that the prognosis that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had a life expectancy of only three months or less was supported by an unnamed doctor who had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer. The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scotttish Prison Service.
‘The three-month time limit is important because Scottish Prison Service guidance says that compassionate release from prison “may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period”.
‘Dr Fraser’s report says: “Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist ‘would be willing to say’.”
‘Dr Fraser’s report, however, also contains a reference to the “opinion” of an unnamed doctor — thought to be a GP — who, says that the report, “dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer”.
‘It adds: “Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.”
‘Last night political opponents at Holyrood were claiming that the conclusion reached by Dr Fraser was based on what the unnamed GP had said and had not taken into sufficient account the more guarded views of the prostate cancer specialists. (…)
‘However, the Scottish government has dismissed the claims. A spokesman said that Dr Fraser had arrived at the prognosis based on information provided by all the various medical experts who assessed that Mr al-Megrahi’s condition had declined. He added that the GP was “in close consultation with a highly experienced NHS consultant oncologist of many years’ experience. This view is based upon an analysis of all of the views expressed and the consensus of the medical experts that the condition of Mr al-Megrahi was now entering its final stages.”’
The position is quite simply this. Specialist oncologists simply are not prepared to tell a patient, or anyone else who may want to know, how long that person has to live. They regard their function as being to provide or advise on the best care and treatment for the patient for however long or short a period he may have left to him. This means that if a patient, or anyone else with a need to know, insists on being provided with a time scale, this must be provided, not by the cancer specialists, but by the ordinary general practitioner attending the patient who must do his best, with his overall knowledge of the patient and the progess of the disease, to translate the specialists’ views into weeks or months.
That is precisely what has happened in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. The newspapers and politicians who have sought to read something sinister and underhand into the medical aspects of Kenny MacAskill’s decision should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly that vocal Labour MSP who is himself a medical practitioner.
The Daily Express’s coverage of the issue can be read here and the Daily Mail’s here.
The Times today has a report which contains the following paragraphs:
‘It emerged that the prognosis that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had a life expectancy of only three months or less was supported by an unnamed doctor who had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer. The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scotttish Prison Service.
‘The three-month time limit is important because Scottish Prison Service guidance says that compassionate release from prison “may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period”.
‘Dr Fraser’s report says: “Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist ‘would be willing to say’.”
‘Dr Fraser’s report, however, also contains a reference to the “opinion” of an unnamed doctor — thought to be a GP — who, says that the report, “dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer”.
‘It adds: “Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.”
‘Last night political opponents at Holyrood were claiming that the conclusion reached by Dr Fraser was based on what the unnamed GP had said and had not taken into sufficient account the more guarded views of the prostate cancer specialists. (…)
‘However, the Scottish government has dismissed the claims. A spokesman said that Dr Fraser had arrived at the prognosis based on information provided by all the various medical experts who assessed that Mr al-Megrahi’s condition had declined. He added that the GP was “in close consultation with a highly experienced NHS consultant oncologist of many years’ experience. This view is based upon an analysis of all of the views expressed and the consensus of the medical experts that the condition of Mr al-Megrahi was now entering its final stages.”’
The position is quite simply this. Specialist oncologists simply are not prepared to tell a patient, or anyone else who may want to know, how long that person has to live. They regard their function as being to provide or advise on the best care and treatment for the patient for however long or short a period he may have left to him. This means that if a patient, or anyone else with a need to know, insists on being provided with a time scale, this must be provided, not by the cancer specialists, but by the ordinary general practitioner attending the patient who must do his best, with his overall knowledge of the patient and the progess of the disease, to translate the specialists’ views into weeks or months.
That is precisely what has happened in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. The newspapers and politicians who have sought to read something sinister and underhand into the medical aspects of Kenny MacAskill’s decision should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly that vocal Labour MSP who is himself a medical practitioner.
Give up political point-scoring over Megrahi and deal with the real issue
[The following are excerpts from letters published in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
On the morning of the emergency Holyrood session on Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Lesley Riddoch (Opinion, 24 August) hoped our MSPs would have a grown-up debate. She will have been disappointed, but not surprised, since it was entirely predictable. (...)
There is widespread support for Mr MacAskill's decision, much of it perhaps coloured by the belief that Mr Megrahi suffered a miscarriage of justice. It would be more useful if our MSPs addressed this issue, rather than scoring party-political points.
Patrick Harvie of the Greens recognised the elephant in the room when he asked the Scottish Government and the UK government to publish "all the information that is relevant ... to (Mr Megrahi's] original conviction, so that everyone – Scots, Americans, Libyans and the world – will be able finally to answer the serious and troubling outstanding questions in this case".
Unfortunately, the indecent haste with which the UK government issued a public interest immunity certificate to ensure such papers will not see the light of day suggests there is, indeed, much to be hidden from our ken.
Alan R Irons, Glasgow
Perhaps before any vote is taken in the Scottish Parliament on Mr MacAskill's courageous decision, which he carefully explained, giving the reasons for it, these MSPs should seek the opinions of the constituents they are representing, not speaking for, because it seems their main objective is to score political points and has little to do with why they were elected.
Unfortunately, there seem to be very few politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in, and if a considerable number vote against the decision because they must follow the party line, it will be a sad day for Scotland and the Scottish people that we are being represented by people so lacking in compassion. This will be a reason for us to feel ashamed.
Mary Morrison, Udny
I refer to David Maddox's interest in whether or not Mr al-Megrahi will die within three months (your report, 26 August) and whether or not the advice Kenny MacAskill received on this matter justified the release on licence.
To speculate on the minor detail of the precise date of al-Megrahi's demise in an attempt to attack Mr MacAskill's decision is squalid and distasteful, and both Mr Maddox and the Labour MSP Richard Simpson – particularly the latter, as a physician – should be ashamed of themselves.
It is also irrelevant: despite Mr Maddox's repeated declaration, the "three month" assessment is a rule of thumb, not a legal requirement.
John Galloway, Drumbuie
It is disappointing to read letters from US correspondents who have decided to cancel trips to Scotland or boycott Scottish products because of the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi.
Although I often disagree with the policies of the US, and the French, government, I visit these countries regularly, because I go to enjoy the countries and the company of friends I have made there over the years, who, incidentally, often complain about their leaders, also.
I believe the decision was right. In showing mercy to a dying man, Kenny MacAskill may have made a small step in healing the rift between the West and the Islamic world. Most of your letters warn of the economic consequences to Scotland of offending the US; I ask that people consider the bigger picture and don't compare dollars with humanitarian values.
Walter J Allan, Edinburgh
On the morning of the emergency Holyrood session on Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Lesley Riddoch (Opinion, 24 August) hoped our MSPs would have a grown-up debate. She will have been disappointed, but not surprised, since it was entirely predictable. (...)
There is widespread support for Mr MacAskill's decision, much of it perhaps coloured by the belief that Mr Megrahi suffered a miscarriage of justice. It would be more useful if our MSPs addressed this issue, rather than scoring party-political points.
Patrick Harvie of the Greens recognised the elephant in the room when he asked the Scottish Government and the UK government to publish "all the information that is relevant ... to (Mr Megrahi's] original conviction, so that everyone – Scots, Americans, Libyans and the world – will be able finally to answer the serious and troubling outstanding questions in this case".
Unfortunately, the indecent haste with which the UK government issued a public interest immunity certificate to ensure such papers will not see the light of day suggests there is, indeed, much to be hidden from our ken.
Alan R Irons, Glasgow
Perhaps before any vote is taken in the Scottish Parliament on Mr MacAskill's courageous decision, which he carefully explained, giving the reasons for it, these MSPs should seek the opinions of the constituents they are representing, not speaking for, because it seems their main objective is to score political points and has little to do with why they were elected.
Unfortunately, there seem to be very few politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in, and if a considerable number vote against the decision because they must follow the party line, it will be a sad day for Scotland and the Scottish people that we are being represented by people so lacking in compassion. This will be a reason for us to feel ashamed.
Mary Morrison, Udny
I refer to David Maddox's interest in whether or not Mr al-Megrahi will die within three months (your report, 26 August) and whether or not the advice Kenny MacAskill received on this matter justified the release on licence.
To speculate on the minor detail of the precise date of al-Megrahi's demise in an attempt to attack Mr MacAskill's decision is squalid and distasteful, and both Mr Maddox and the Labour MSP Richard Simpson – particularly the latter, as a physician – should be ashamed of themselves.
It is also irrelevant: despite Mr Maddox's repeated declaration, the "three month" assessment is a rule of thumb, not a legal requirement.
John Galloway, Drumbuie
It is disappointing to read letters from US correspondents who have decided to cancel trips to Scotland or boycott Scottish products because of the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi.
Although I often disagree with the policies of the US, and the French, government, I visit these countries regularly, because I go to enjoy the countries and the company of friends I have made there over the years, who, incidentally, often complain about their leaders, also.
I believe the decision was right. In showing mercy to a dying man, Kenny MacAskill may have made a small step in healing the rift between the West and the Islamic world. Most of your letters warn of the economic consequences to Scotland of offending the US; I ask that people consider the bigger picture and don't compare dollars with humanitarian values.
Walter J Allan, Edinburgh
'Lockerbie is history. Now it’s time to talk business'
[Today's edition of The Herald contains an article by Lucy Adams in Tripoli reporting on an interview given to her by Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif-al-Islam. The following are excerpts.]
Speaking exclusively to The Herald at his home near Tripoli, Saif al Islam al Gaddafi disclosed the original prisoner transfer deal with the UK government was directly linked to talks on trade and oil.
However, he denied this had anything to do with the eventual release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and said the mercy shown by the Scottish Government had transformed the traditional Arabic view of Britain as "crusaders" against Islam.
Mr al Gaddafi praised Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, who last week freed Megrahi on compassionate grounds, as "a great man", and said his decision had opened the way for future business.
In his first full interview since the international storm surrounding the release, Mr al Gaddafi apologised for any perception that the Libyan government had not done its best to contain the jubilant scenes that accompanied Megrahi's arrival in Libya, but said they could have been far more extensive and were emphatically not a "hero's welcome".
He also revealed that Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, will not be taking part in the 40th anniversary celebrations of Colonel Gaddafi coming to power next week.
In what he said was his most important message, Mr al Gaddafi said: "Lockerbie is history. The next step is fruitful and productive business with Edinburgh and London. Libya is a promising, rich market and so let's talk about the future. There is no reason for people to be angry. Why be so angry? This is an innocent man who is dying." (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said that the infamous "deal in the desert", which saw an agreement signed between Tony Blair and Libya allowing prisoner transfers, specifically targeted Megrahi - although his name was never mentioned.
He said: "For the last seven to eight years we have been trying very hard to transfer Mr Megrahi to Libya to serve his sentence here, and we have tried many times in the past to sign the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) without mentioning Mr Megrahi, but it was obvious we were targeting Mr Megrahi and the PTA was on the table all the time.
"It was part of the bargaining deal with the UK. When Tony Blair came here we signed the agreement. It is not a secret. But I want to be very clear to your readers that we didn't mention Mr Megrahi. People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and politics and deals were all with the PTA."
Mr al Gaddafi, who is convinced of Megrahi's innocence, has led the negotiations for the Libyan Government with the UK and Scotland and was waiting to greet Megrahi on the Afriqiyah Airbus at Glasgow airport that flew him home.
On the flight to Tripoli, Mr al Gaddafi spoke briefly on camera and was later criticised for suggesting that, in all commercial contracts for oil and gas with the UK, Megrahi's transfer was on the "negotiating table". However, Mr al Gaddafi told The Herald there had been no quid pro quo and that his comments had been misunderstood partly because people do not understand the difference between the PTA and compassionate release.
"This the PTA was one animal and the other was the compassionate release," he said. "They are two completely different animals. The Scottish authorities rejected the PTA. It did not work at all, therefore it was meaningless. He was released for completely different reasons."
Ultimately, however, he said the work to secure prisoner transfer of Megrahi failed as it was rejected by Mr MacAskill. Instead, the minister chose to release Megrahi from Greenock prison early on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill and medical reports suggested he had less than three months to live.
Mr al Gaddafi said: "It was a shock and surprise for Libyan society that he was freed on compassionate grounds and it showed the Libyans that the British and Scottish are civilised people because the perception here is that they are crusaders and they hate us and Islam and hate Arabs and they are not tolerant at all of us. But this act has touched the minds of many people and shown that they are merciful and more civilised than people had thought.
"That is why, for the first time in our history, that Libyan citizens have been out in the streets waving a different flag - the Scottish flag. This is a unique event for us. This act changed the minds of many people."
Mr Brown this week spoke of his "revulsion" at what the media described as a "hero's welcome" when Megrahi was met by his family and hundreds of Libyans waving flags, including Saltires. (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said: "There was no official celebration, no guards of honour, no fireworks and no parade. We could have arranged a much better reception.
"The US knew a long time ago that Mr Megrahi would probably be released and asked us to keep the reception low-key. For the last three or four weeks it has become obvious that he might have been released, so it was not a complete surprise for them.
"Most of the families of the victims in Scotland have written to us to say they are pro the decision and more than 20% of the American families say they have no objection. Even some of the families are in favour but different parties - politicians - may be trying to use it to their own advantage."
[The Herald's leader on the subject can be read here.
Tomorrow's edition of The Herald will feature reports by Lucy Adams and Ian Ferguson on a one hour interview with Mr Megrahi.]
Speaking exclusively to The Herald at his home near Tripoli, Saif al Islam al Gaddafi disclosed the original prisoner transfer deal with the UK government was directly linked to talks on trade and oil.
However, he denied this had anything to do with the eventual release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and said the mercy shown by the Scottish Government had transformed the traditional Arabic view of Britain as "crusaders" against Islam.
Mr al Gaddafi praised Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, who last week freed Megrahi on compassionate grounds, as "a great man", and said his decision had opened the way for future business.
In his first full interview since the international storm surrounding the release, Mr al Gaddafi apologised for any perception that the Libyan government had not done its best to contain the jubilant scenes that accompanied Megrahi's arrival in Libya, but said they could have been far more extensive and were emphatically not a "hero's welcome".
He also revealed that Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, will not be taking part in the 40th anniversary celebrations of Colonel Gaddafi coming to power next week.
In what he said was his most important message, Mr al Gaddafi said: "Lockerbie is history. The next step is fruitful and productive business with Edinburgh and London. Libya is a promising, rich market and so let's talk about the future. There is no reason for people to be angry. Why be so angry? This is an innocent man who is dying." (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said that the infamous "deal in the desert", which saw an agreement signed between Tony Blair and Libya allowing prisoner transfers, specifically targeted Megrahi - although his name was never mentioned.
He said: "For the last seven to eight years we have been trying very hard to transfer Mr Megrahi to Libya to serve his sentence here, and we have tried many times in the past to sign the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) without mentioning Mr Megrahi, but it was obvious we were targeting Mr Megrahi and the PTA was on the table all the time.
"It was part of the bargaining deal with the UK. When Tony Blair came here we signed the agreement. It is not a secret. But I want to be very clear to your readers that we didn't mention Mr Megrahi. People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and politics and deals were all with the PTA."
Mr al Gaddafi, who is convinced of Megrahi's innocence, has led the negotiations for the Libyan Government with the UK and Scotland and was waiting to greet Megrahi on the Afriqiyah Airbus at Glasgow airport that flew him home.
On the flight to Tripoli, Mr al Gaddafi spoke briefly on camera and was later criticised for suggesting that, in all commercial contracts for oil and gas with the UK, Megrahi's transfer was on the "negotiating table". However, Mr al Gaddafi told The Herald there had been no quid pro quo and that his comments had been misunderstood partly because people do not understand the difference between the PTA and compassionate release.
"This the PTA was one animal and the other was the compassionate release," he said. "They are two completely different animals. The Scottish authorities rejected the PTA. It did not work at all, therefore it was meaningless. He was released for completely different reasons."
Ultimately, however, he said the work to secure prisoner transfer of Megrahi failed as it was rejected by Mr MacAskill. Instead, the minister chose to release Megrahi from Greenock prison early on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill and medical reports suggested he had less than three months to live.
Mr al Gaddafi said: "It was a shock and surprise for Libyan society that he was freed on compassionate grounds and it showed the Libyans that the British and Scottish are civilised people because the perception here is that they are crusaders and they hate us and Islam and hate Arabs and they are not tolerant at all of us. But this act has touched the minds of many people and shown that they are merciful and more civilised than people had thought.
"That is why, for the first time in our history, that Libyan citizens have been out in the streets waving a different flag - the Scottish flag. This is a unique event for us. This act changed the minds of many people."
Mr Brown this week spoke of his "revulsion" at what the media described as a "hero's welcome" when Megrahi was met by his family and hundreds of Libyans waving flags, including Saltires. (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said: "There was no official celebration, no guards of honour, no fireworks and no parade. We could have arranged a much better reception.
"The US knew a long time ago that Mr Megrahi would probably be released and asked us to keep the reception low-key. For the last three or four weeks it has become obvious that he might have been released, so it was not a complete surprise for them.
"Most of the families of the victims in Scotland have written to us to say they are pro the decision and more than 20% of the American families say they have no objection. Even some of the families are in favour but different parties - politicians - may be trying to use it to their own advantage."
[The Herald's leader on the subject can be read here.
Tomorrow's edition of The Herald will feature reports by Lucy Adams and Ian Ferguson on a one hour interview with Mr Megrahi.]
Thursday, 27 August 2009
That letter from the FBI to the Justice Secretary: is it real?
This is the heading over a devastating exposure by Jonathan Mitchell QC on his blog of the misconceptions and errors of fact and law in the letter from the Director of the FBI to Kenny MacAskill. Mr Mitchell's earlier post on the subject can be read here.
SNP says support holding firm after "tough decision"
Support for the SNP remains strong despite opposition attacks over the last week according to a YouGov poll for the Daily Mail.
The poll of 1078 Scottish adults between the 24th and 26th August shows that
*More people support Alex Salmond as the best Scottish First Minister than support three opposition party leaders - combined!
*Support for Alex Salmond as First Minister was 32%, nearly 3 times higher than that for Ian Gray [Labour] and Annabel Goldie [Conservative] and over 5 times higher than Tavish Scott [Liberal Democrat] at 6%.
*A majority of Liberal Democrats - 57% - think releasing Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was the right decision, as do well over a third of Labour voters (39%).
*Two thirds of those questioned support Kenny MacAskill remaining as Justice Minister regardless of their view of the decision.
*More people support the SNP in the Scottish constituency vote than any other party.
*Support for the SNP at a Westminster election is 7 points higher than the 2005 result.
Commenting on the results SNP Depute Leader and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP said:
"The Justice Secretary made a brave and difficult decision, and this poll illustrates the underlying strength of the SNP and Scottish Government in these circumstances. The First Minister's ratings are three times higher than those of the Labour or Tory leaders in Scotland, and there is strong support for the Justice Secretary. The SNP maintains a Holyrood constituency poll lead, and our support is 7 points up on the last General Election.
"The Justice Secretary had to make a decision about Mr Al Megrahi. He had the courage to make the right decision for the right reasons, which attracts very substantial support in this poll. It will gather further support on that basis, because people recognise that Mr MacAskill upheld the due process of Scots Law in difficult circumstances. The poll also indicates how ill-judged it was for the other parties to politicise the issue, with, for example, a majority of Lib Dem voters in support of the Justice Secretary's decision."
[From a press release issued by the Scottish National Party.]
The poll of 1078 Scottish adults between the 24th and 26th August shows that
*More people support Alex Salmond as the best Scottish First Minister than support three opposition party leaders - combined!
*Support for Alex Salmond as First Minister was 32%, nearly 3 times higher than that for Ian Gray [Labour] and Annabel Goldie [Conservative] and over 5 times higher than Tavish Scott [Liberal Democrat] at 6%.
*A majority of Liberal Democrats - 57% - think releasing Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was the right decision, as do well over a third of Labour voters (39%).
*Two thirds of those questioned support Kenny MacAskill remaining as Justice Minister regardless of their view of the decision.
*More people support the SNP in the Scottish constituency vote than any other party.
*Support for the SNP at a Westminster election is 7 points higher than the 2005 result.
Commenting on the results SNP Depute Leader and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP said:
"The Justice Secretary made a brave and difficult decision, and this poll illustrates the underlying strength of the SNP and Scottish Government in these circumstances. The First Minister's ratings are three times higher than those of the Labour or Tory leaders in Scotland, and there is strong support for the Justice Secretary. The SNP maintains a Holyrood constituency poll lead, and our support is 7 points up on the last General Election.
"The Justice Secretary had to make a decision about Mr Al Megrahi. He had the courage to make the right decision for the right reasons, which attracts very substantial support in this poll. It will gather further support on that basis, because people recognise that Mr MacAskill upheld the due process of Scots Law in difficult circumstances. The poll also indicates how ill-judged it was for the other parties to politicise the issue, with, for example, a majority of Lib Dem voters in support of the Justice Secretary's decision."
[From a press release issued by the Scottish National Party.]
Pan Am 103: The unanswered questions
[This is the headline over a long interview with Joe Mifsud published in the midweek edition of maltatoday. Mr Mifsud has followed, and written about, the Lockerbie case for many years. The following are excerpts from the interview.]
“Malta is still portrayed as the place where the terrorists met and executed their plan to kill 270 innocent people. Our national airline Air Malta was unjustly implicated. I have suffered silently as a Maltese citizen, listened patiently to the allegations but fought with pride to clear Malta’s name.”
So saying, Joe Mifsud reiterates a point he has been making for almost 20 years. But with Megrahi now released on compassionate grounds, and a growing chorus of voices demanding an independent inquiry into the 1988 disaster, Mifsud still has mixed feelings about the entire affair.
“Vindicated? No,” he says when asked for his reaction to the release. “I thought about the relatives and friends of the victims who perished in the Pan Am tragedy. I thought about the time that was wasted and the truth that has not emerged. There are some who might be happy with financial compensation or a guilty verdict. The latter will not take away the pain and anguish caused by the fact that they still do not know the cruel hand behind the planning and the execution of their dear ones...”
Mifsud argues that foreign investigators had abused our friendship and infringed Maltese law. They illegally tapped telephones and even offered money for evidence to strengthen their case.
“I still remember two particular occasions. During proceedings the court was told that the whereabouts of a husband and wife, mentioned as members of a Palestinian terror team responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, were unknown, when I knew that there were living openly with their three young children in Gaza. Everyone was surprised when I interviewed the couple and the story was published on the front page of Scotland on Sunday. When Scottish police first came to Malta in 1989, it was to investigate a Lockerbie connection because clothes originating on the island had been in the bomb suitcase. On their second visit, Palestinian terrorists were suspected. At that time the Palestinian man was living in Malta with his family. His phone was illegally tapped by Scottish police operating in partnership with the American and German investigators. The Maltese authorities protested when the clandestine operation was discovered and the whole investigation was immediately suspended. The investigators were asked to leave Malta and were only allowed to return several weeks later when the Maltese government had been guaranteed that there would be no repeat of illegal investigations.”
The second occasion was when Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the second suspect, was acquitted on 31 January, 2002.
“I visited Fhimah one week after the end of the trial when festivities to celebrate his acquittal were still in full swing in his home area Suq il-Gimgha. I still remember Fhimah’s words: ‘I had tears in my eyes when I bid him farewell, I was very sad and left with a broken heart knowing that my friend Basset was still there. I kept contact with him. As you believed that I was innocent, believe that Basset is innocent too.’”
But what, apart from instinct, originally led Mifsud to doubt the prosecution’s version of events?
“I personally knew Fhimah as he used to live in Mosta, my home town. When his name was mentioned in the investigations I was surprised, and my initial reaction was that I was witnessing a frame up in the making. I was very suspicious regarding Abdul Majid Jiacha, a Libyan defector married to a Maltese. At that time he was being considered as the star witness. I investigated further and obtained classified documents from the USA, claiming that he was in the Witness Protection Programme and he had met US agents more than 10 times before the Lockerbie bombing! So if he knew what was happening he should have supplied all necessary warnings so that the terror act would have been prevented.” (...)
But if the Libya connection is in doubt, what other explanation could there be for a terrorist act claiming 270 lives?
“Secret service sources suggest that the Pan Am disaster was an act of revenge for another air disaster. On 3 July 1988 a United States warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iran Air civilian airliner killing 290 people. As a result of this action and of increased tension in the Middle East it was generally expected that the United States would be the subject of reprisals. There was widespread concern about the threat to United States civilian aircraft at the time.”
As for the insistence on prosecuting Libyan suspects, Mifsud suspects a case of “blame shifting”:
“Pointing fingers to the bad guys of the moment – Libya was known for their support to movements linked to terror, including the IRA, Abu Nidal and others.”
In view of the doubts now cast on the trial proceedings, Mifsud believes the time has come for an independent enquiry.
“During the past years I have spoken to Jim Swire who lost his daughter in this tragedy. He always urged the British government to appoint an inquiry to investigate the case. This should have been done immediately after the tragedy. I agree with his suggestion; better late than never. I still remember the representatives of British victims telling me that questions about the tragedy went unanswered in the trial. They said the trial had not answered the huge number of questions asked over the last years. In my opinion the trial only served to add to this list of questions. A United Nations initiative in the form of a tribunal can act as an independent inquiry...”
What further details could such an inquiry reveal that have so far not come to light?
“The bomb which caused the Pan Am 103 tragedy on Lockerbie did not start its journey from Malta, as the Crown suggested during the trial and during the early stages of the investigations, but from another destination. Where? This is the first question that needs to be answered.
“The bomb device could have been introduced into the working area of Frankfurt by being flown on board any airline, interline tagged or on-line tagged for PA 103. The luggage could have been sent from the Damascus airport in Syria.
“Regarding Heathrow airport, where it is certain that the bomb was loaded onto the Pan Am flight, the three-judge panel itself said that there was also a possibility that an extraneous suitcase could have been introduced by being put onto the conveyor belt outside the interline shed, or introduced into the shed itself or into the container when it was at the built-up area...”
The second unanswered question concerns who mandated the act of terror and who executed the plan. To answer this, Mifsud argues we have to go back to the shortcomings of the initial investigations – among them, the process that led Tony Gauci to identify Megrahi as the person who bought the incriminating clothes from his shop.
“Two points that should have been noted in Tony Gauci’s testimony are: If the person who bought the items from his shop was living at the Holiday Inn Hotel as the prosecution claimed, and this is less than five minutes away from the shop, was it wise for the person who bought the items to walk to the taxi stand which is the same distance from the hotel and in the opposite direction? If Megrahi was the head of the security service and planning a terrorist attack, would it be wise for him to go and buy the clothes himself? This point is very puzzling and confusing. Scottish judges came to a conclusion even without coming to Malta and conducting an on-site inquiry in order to become acquainted with places mentioned in the trial.”
In the final analysis, Mifsud suggests it may have been in the interest of other countries to implicate Malta, albeit indirectly.
“At that time the German authorities were highly criticised for the fact that just some time before the tragedy they had in custody a number of persons involved in terrorist acts, who were very close to the Palestinian faction of Ahmed Jibril, the PFLP-GC, whose base is in Syria. (...)
“Germany was also criticised by security services as how a person suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie case, Hafez Kasem Dalkamoni, was allowed to depart from Germany to Syria without being interrogated about the Lockerbie case.”
“Malta is still portrayed as the place where the terrorists met and executed their plan to kill 270 innocent people. Our national airline Air Malta was unjustly implicated. I have suffered silently as a Maltese citizen, listened patiently to the allegations but fought with pride to clear Malta’s name.”
So saying, Joe Mifsud reiterates a point he has been making for almost 20 years. But with Megrahi now released on compassionate grounds, and a growing chorus of voices demanding an independent inquiry into the 1988 disaster, Mifsud still has mixed feelings about the entire affair.
“Vindicated? No,” he says when asked for his reaction to the release. “I thought about the relatives and friends of the victims who perished in the Pan Am tragedy. I thought about the time that was wasted and the truth that has not emerged. There are some who might be happy with financial compensation or a guilty verdict. The latter will not take away the pain and anguish caused by the fact that they still do not know the cruel hand behind the planning and the execution of their dear ones...”
Mifsud argues that foreign investigators had abused our friendship and infringed Maltese law. They illegally tapped telephones and even offered money for evidence to strengthen their case.
“I still remember two particular occasions. During proceedings the court was told that the whereabouts of a husband and wife, mentioned as members of a Palestinian terror team responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, were unknown, when I knew that there were living openly with their three young children in Gaza. Everyone was surprised when I interviewed the couple and the story was published on the front page of Scotland on Sunday. When Scottish police first came to Malta in 1989, it was to investigate a Lockerbie connection because clothes originating on the island had been in the bomb suitcase. On their second visit, Palestinian terrorists were suspected. At that time the Palestinian man was living in Malta with his family. His phone was illegally tapped by Scottish police operating in partnership with the American and German investigators. The Maltese authorities protested when the clandestine operation was discovered and the whole investigation was immediately suspended. The investigators were asked to leave Malta and were only allowed to return several weeks later when the Maltese government had been guaranteed that there would be no repeat of illegal investigations.”
The second occasion was when Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the second suspect, was acquitted on 31 January, 2002.
“I visited Fhimah one week after the end of the trial when festivities to celebrate his acquittal were still in full swing in his home area Suq il-Gimgha. I still remember Fhimah’s words: ‘I had tears in my eyes when I bid him farewell, I was very sad and left with a broken heart knowing that my friend Basset was still there. I kept contact with him. As you believed that I was innocent, believe that Basset is innocent too.’”
But what, apart from instinct, originally led Mifsud to doubt the prosecution’s version of events?
“I personally knew Fhimah as he used to live in Mosta, my home town. When his name was mentioned in the investigations I was surprised, and my initial reaction was that I was witnessing a frame up in the making. I was very suspicious regarding Abdul Majid Jiacha, a Libyan defector married to a Maltese. At that time he was being considered as the star witness. I investigated further and obtained classified documents from the USA, claiming that he was in the Witness Protection Programme and he had met US agents more than 10 times before the Lockerbie bombing! So if he knew what was happening he should have supplied all necessary warnings so that the terror act would have been prevented.” (...)
But if the Libya connection is in doubt, what other explanation could there be for a terrorist act claiming 270 lives?
“Secret service sources suggest that the Pan Am disaster was an act of revenge for another air disaster. On 3 July 1988 a United States warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iran Air civilian airliner killing 290 people. As a result of this action and of increased tension in the Middle East it was generally expected that the United States would be the subject of reprisals. There was widespread concern about the threat to United States civilian aircraft at the time.”
As for the insistence on prosecuting Libyan suspects, Mifsud suspects a case of “blame shifting”:
“Pointing fingers to the bad guys of the moment – Libya was known for their support to movements linked to terror, including the IRA, Abu Nidal and others.”
In view of the doubts now cast on the trial proceedings, Mifsud believes the time has come for an independent enquiry.
“During the past years I have spoken to Jim Swire who lost his daughter in this tragedy. He always urged the British government to appoint an inquiry to investigate the case. This should have been done immediately after the tragedy. I agree with his suggestion; better late than never. I still remember the representatives of British victims telling me that questions about the tragedy went unanswered in the trial. They said the trial had not answered the huge number of questions asked over the last years. In my opinion the trial only served to add to this list of questions. A United Nations initiative in the form of a tribunal can act as an independent inquiry...”
What further details could such an inquiry reveal that have so far not come to light?
“The bomb which caused the Pan Am 103 tragedy on Lockerbie did not start its journey from Malta, as the Crown suggested during the trial and during the early stages of the investigations, but from another destination. Where? This is the first question that needs to be answered.
“The bomb device could have been introduced into the working area of Frankfurt by being flown on board any airline, interline tagged or on-line tagged for PA 103. The luggage could have been sent from the Damascus airport in Syria.
“Regarding Heathrow airport, where it is certain that the bomb was loaded onto the Pan Am flight, the three-judge panel itself said that there was also a possibility that an extraneous suitcase could have been introduced by being put onto the conveyor belt outside the interline shed, or introduced into the shed itself or into the container when it was at the built-up area...”
The second unanswered question concerns who mandated the act of terror and who executed the plan. To answer this, Mifsud argues we have to go back to the shortcomings of the initial investigations – among them, the process that led Tony Gauci to identify Megrahi as the person who bought the incriminating clothes from his shop.
“Two points that should have been noted in Tony Gauci’s testimony are: If the person who bought the items from his shop was living at the Holiday Inn Hotel as the prosecution claimed, and this is less than five minutes away from the shop, was it wise for the person who bought the items to walk to the taxi stand which is the same distance from the hotel and in the opposite direction? If Megrahi was the head of the security service and planning a terrorist attack, would it be wise for him to go and buy the clothes himself? This point is very puzzling and confusing. Scottish judges came to a conclusion even without coming to Malta and conducting an on-site inquiry in order to become acquainted with places mentioned in the trial.”
In the final analysis, Mifsud suggests it may have been in the interest of other countries to implicate Malta, albeit indirectly.
“At that time the German authorities were highly criticised for the fact that just some time before the tragedy they had in custody a number of persons involved in terrorist acts, who were very close to the Palestinian faction of Ahmed Jibril, the PFLP-GC, whose base is in Syria. (...)
“Germany was also criticised by security services as how a person suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie case, Hafez Kasem Dalkamoni, was allowed to depart from Germany to Syria without being interrogated about the Lockerbie case.”
Pan Am 103 bombing – neither Megrahi nor Malta played any part
[This is the headline over an article in the midweek edition of maltatoday. It reads in part:]
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland should stop to think how fragile the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt is. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the tragedy, deconstructs the Lockerbie case
I entered the Lockerbie trial court convinced that I would see the conviction of those responsible for my daughter’s murder along with 269 others. I emerged at the end convinced that neither the accused, nor Malta or Air Malta, had played any part in the atrocity.
The evidence from Malta was unconvincing: it was not proven that the clothes found among the Lockerbie wreckage from Tony Gauci’s shop were really bought on the day stated. This seemed more likely to have happened on a day when a man called Abu Talb was on your island, but Megrahi definitely was not. We knew from other sources that when the Swedish police had arrested Abu Talb for a different terrorist offence they had found some of the same batch of clothing in his Swedish flat. No explanation for that was available under the prosecution. Talb was an affiliate of the Syria-based PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) terror group, and of Iran.
We also knew that Mr Gauci had been shown a picture of Talb by his brother Paul and positively identified him as the buyer. Only under repeated pressure from the Scottish police did he reluctantly accept that Megrahi’s picture might have been of the buyer.
Mr Gauci should not be blamed for his uncertainty, he did say in court that identifying Megrahi as the buyer might cause trouble in his family; he had confidently told Paul that Talb had been the buyer.
No evidence was led by the prosecution as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security at Luqa. The court commented that this was a major problem for the prosecution. (...)
...after the verdict had been reached, a security guard from Heathrow airport came forward. He had discovered a nocturnal break-in at Heathrow at Terminal 3, adjacent to where the bags for Pan Am 103 were loaded that evening of 21 December 1988. He wanted to know why his evidence had been ignored until after the verdict had been reached. We all need to know that too.
If the Heathrow intruder had brought in one of this type of IED in a suitcase, he could have left it with Iran Air staff, whose facility was close to the area where the PA103 bags were loaded that evening, with a message to put it in a Pan Am baggage container that evening. This was precisely the scenario for which these IEDs were designed.
You may say that to claim that this break-in was the real route by which the IED got aboard PA103 is speculation. You would be right, it is, because the issue could not be discussed during the trial since the break-in was unknown to the court until after the verdict, but it now makes a far simpler and more credible explanation than the prosecution case.
No one will admit why this evidence had lain concealed for 12 years.
The Metropolitan police had interviewed the security guard promptly, and he had entered the break-in details in the Heathrow log as soon as he found them.
It would be almost incredible if Mrs Thatcher’s government did not know, since the Metropolitan police and Heathrow knew what had happened just under their noses at our most prestigious airport. It would be almost equally incredible if the Scottish investigating police did not know.
Two years after the two Libyans had been indicted over Lockerbie, Lady Thatcher published her book ‘The Downing Street Years’. In it she claimed that because of the air raids on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986, which she had co-sponsored with US President Reagan, Gaddafi had been left unable to mount further major terrorist attacks. When I wrote to ask her how she could say this in view of the indictments, she claimed to have “nothing to add to the text”.
I then wrote to the Lord Advocate of Scotland to ask whether Scotland’s Crown Office had known about the break-in during the 12 years of concealment, they replied that the Crown Office had not known. (...)
Britain and the US whose intelligence services/investigators were working closely together on this dreadful case need to explain this issue. We need a fully empowered inquiry. We have been seeking that for 20 years.
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland from America should stop to think how fragile is the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt. It is sad to think that President Obama’s new administration has not yet checked out the facts before joining in.
[A long and detailed article on the case, and particularly on the role of shopkeeper Tony Gauci, by Matthew Vella in the same newspaper can be read here.]
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland should stop to think how fragile the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt is. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the tragedy, deconstructs the Lockerbie case
I entered the Lockerbie trial court convinced that I would see the conviction of those responsible for my daughter’s murder along with 269 others. I emerged at the end convinced that neither the accused, nor Malta or Air Malta, had played any part in the atrocity.
The evidence from Malta was unconvincing: it was not proven that the clothes found among the Lockerbie wreckage from Tony Gauci’s shop were really bought on the day stated. This seemed more likely to have happened on a day when a man called Abu Talb was on your island, but Megrahi definitely was not. We knew from other sources that when the Swedish police had arrested Abu Talb for a different terrorist offence they had found some of the same batch of clothing in his Swedish flat. No explanation for that was available under the prosecution. Talb was an affiliate of the Syria-based PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) terror group, and of Iran.
We also knew that Mr Gauci had been shown a picture of Talb by his brother Paul and positively identified him as the buyer. Only under repeated pressure from the Scottish police did he reluctantly accept that Megrahi’s picture might have been of the buyer.
Mr Gauci should not be blamed for his uncertainty, he did say in court that identifying Megrahi as the buyer might cause trouble in his family; he had confidently told Paul that Talb had been the buyer.
No evidence was led by the prosecution as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security at Luqa. The court commented that this was a major problem for the prosecution. (...)
...after the verdict had been reached, a security guard from Heathrow airport came forward. He had discovered a nocturnal break-in at Heathrow at Terminal 3, adjacent to where the bags for Pan Am 103 were loaded that evening of 21 December 1988. He wanted to know why his evidence had been ignored until after the verdict had been reached. We all need to know that too.
If the Heathrow intruder had brought in one of this type of IED in a suitcase, he could have left it with Iran Air staff, whose facility was close to the area where the PA103 bags were loaded that evening, with a message to put it in a Pan Am baggage container that evening. This was precisely the scenario for which these IEDs were designed.
You may say that to claim that this break-in was the real route by which the IED got aboard PA103 is speculation. You would be right, it is, because the issue could not be discussed during the trial since the break-in was unknown to the court until after the verdict, but it now makes a far simpler and more credible explanation than the prosecution case.
No one will admit why this evidence had lain concealed for 12 years.
The Metropolitan police had interviewed the security guard promptly, and he had entered the break-in details in the Heathrow log as soon as he found them.
It would be almost incredible if Mrs Thatcher’s government did not know, since the Metropolitan police and Heathrow knew what had happened just under their noses at our most prestigious airport. It would be almost equally incredible if the Scottish investigating police did not know.
Two years after the two Libyans had been indicted over Lockerbie, Lady Thatcher published her book ‘The Downing Street Years’. In it she claimed that because of the air raids on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986, which she had co-sponsored with US President Reagan, Gaddafi had been left unable to mount further major terrorist attacks. When I wrote to ask her how she could say this in view of the indictments, she claimed to have “nothing to add to the text”.
I then wrote to the Lord Advocate of Scotland to ask whether Scotland’s Crown Office had known about the break-in during the 12 years of concealment, they replied that the Crown Office had not known. (...)
Britain and the US whose intelligence services/investigators were working closely together on this dreadful case need to explain this issue. We need a fully empowered inquiry. We have been seeking that for 20 years.
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland from America should stop to think how fragile is the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt. It is sad to think that President Obama’s new administration has not yet checked out the facts before joining in.
[A long and detailed article on the case, and particularly on the role of shopkeeper Tony Gauci, by Matthew Vella in the same newspaper can be read here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)