[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows.]
The United States has no provision in its justice system for compassion for those found guilty. As a result, it must be difficult for the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, to understand that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was acting in keeping with an established precedent under Scots law to sanction release when the death of a prisoner is imminent.
It is unprecedented for Mr Mueller, the FBI chief, to castigate the Justice Secretary of another sovereign nation for an action which complied with Scotland's law, taking account of humanity and mercy.
That Scotland does not have the death penalty, unlike the US, was one of the spurs that propelled me to visit Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, after the indictments on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were issued to ask him to allow his citizens to attend trial under Scots law. I feel vindicated that Megrahi is at least back home with his family, alive
My country, Scotland, is Christian and I believe Mr MacAskill's decision chimed with the Christian principle of attempting to extend love and mercy, even to one's presumed enemies. It is a tough doctrine to embrace if you believe the man to have been guilty, but easier for those of us who suspect the verdict was wrong. The Church of Scotland has publicly supported Megrahi's return to his family, whether guilty or not. And Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow says showing mercy is not a sign of weakness. To be honest, I cannot be sure I would have the compassion to do that if I believed him guilty. Mr MacAskill's was by far the harder choice.
By a humbler standard, I cannot understand how forcing Megrahi to die in prison when there was provision to extend him mercy could make anyone feel better. Since when have two wrongs made a right?
It is clear that Mr MacAskill, contrary to Mr Mueller's allegations, acted with great care in talking to and listening to those directly affected by the Lockerbie atrocity, including the American families. It is also untrue to state, as Mr Mueller does, that the Justice Secretary's action "makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy".
I regret deeply that continuing our search for the truth endangers the "certainty" so many relatives, especially in the US, have concerning Megrahi's conviction. But to search for the truth over so grave a matter does not constitute mockery.
It is clear that Mr Mueller has an interest in defending the evidence which his agency and his country's CIA played so great a part in garnering after the bombing. Mr Mueller should realise that a number of open-minded and observant relatives, as well as many others who have studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the verdict should not have been reached.
We welcomed Megrahi's second appeal and were aware that many feared its outcome. Yet in the shadow of death, Megrahi, who wants above all else to clear his name, decided to withdraw his appeal. He hoped this would increase the likelihood of his return to his family to die. What would you, dear reader, have done?
As relatives, we want to find the truth of why our families were not protected, despite timely warnings, and who killed them. I would be grateful if Mr Mueller could answer me this question: if it turns out that the verdict is wrong and that the real terrorists are not only free but aware that the evidence for a Libyan crime was fatally flawed, does that cause more harm to the "fight against terror" than freeing a dying man to spend his last days with his family?
We must wait to see what Megrahi's defence can produce. Let us hope it doesn't take another 12 years for the answers. The search for the truth will not go away. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has found grounds for suspecting there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Compassion for Megrahi is welcome in some quarters. It might be that withdrawal of Megrahi's second appeal, which had proceeded at a glacially slow pace, will actually speed up the search for the truth. That is my hope.
[The New York Times today carries a report on the subject of Mr Megrahi's compassionate release headlined "Fury grows over release of Lockerbie convict". It can be read here.]
No comments:
Post a Comment