Lockerbie extradition suggestion ‘was utter nonsense’

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

The leading expert on the Lockerbie trial has accused the US ambassador to Britain of talking “utter nonsense” by saying America could have sought extradition of those involved in the bombing.

Robert Black, the professor who was instrumental in enabling the Lockerbie trial to be held at Camp Zeist in Holland, ridiculed the whole idea of extradition.

US Ambassador Louis B Susman said the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi strained relations between the US and Scotland but caused no lasting damage.

He told BBC Scotland: “We never anticipated his release. I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on.”

He added: “Good friends disagree. I compare it sometimes to a marriage.”

Mr Susman was speaking during his first official visit to Scotland. Mr Salmond hosted a reception where the ambassador launched an exchange programme to strengthen links between the countries.

Professor Black said: “If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah, but there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possi-bility that extradition would be effected voluntarily.”

If the ambassador was referring to the period after Megrahi’s conviction, his comment was “utter nonsense” because none of the diplomacy would have worked.

[The last sentence does not accurately reflect what I said. As I pointed out on this blog yesterday, if extradition had been sought after Mr Megrahi was convicted the application would have been summarily dismissed by the Scottish courts because there was no warrant for it in the legislation governing extradition.

The report on the issue in The Times contains the following:

'Mr Susman said in a television interview: “We never anticipated his release. If we had thought he would be released we would have asked for extradition early on.” (...)

'However, Mr Susman’s view was challenged last night by Scottish legal experts and politicians who pointed out that although many of the Lockerbie victims were American citizens, the crime had taken place over Scottish soil, and therefore al-Megrahi could not have stood trial in the US. [RB: The aircraft was registered in the United States and 189 of those who died were US citizens. There was accordingly never any legal doubt that the accused could have been tried in the United States. The problem was that there was no US-Libya extradition treaty and never the remotest chance that the suspects would be handed over voluntarily into US hands.]

'Given the poor relations between Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and the US Government at the time, there was never any chance, they said, that the Libyans would have allowed al-Megrahi to be tried in the US. They also pointed out that the international agreement that allowed al-Megrahi’s trial to go ahead in the Netherlands stipulated that any sentence handed down by the Scottish court would be served in Scotland.

'However, they added that Mr Susman’s comments may reflect the continuing anger felt in Washington and among victims’ relatives who say that they were repeatedly promised by the British Government that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland.

'Scottish opposition parties that opposed the release criticised Mr Susman’s views. The Scottish Tories said that while the decision to release al-Megrahi was “profoundly wrong”, it was a matter for Scotland. The Liberal Democrats agreed, saying: “Given that one of the fundamental principles of Scots law is that somebody cannot be tried for the same crime twice, it’s difficult to see what case the US Government could have put for extradition.”'

The report in The Scotsman contains the following:

'"We never anticipated his release," said Mr Susman. "I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on." (...)

'But Professor Robert Black, who was one of the architects of the Camp Zeist agreement which saw Megrahi handed over by the Libyans for trial in 2000, described the comments as "utter rubbish".

'"The Americans know that Libya would never have handed over Mr Megrahi for trial in America," he said. (...)

'Susan Cohen, an American whose daughter was killed in the attack, said: "I always thought we should have gone for extradition. Events proved me right."'

RB: After the announcement in Scotland and in the United States in November 1991 that charges had been brought against Megrahi and Fhimah, both countries sought the extradition of the suspects through diplomatic channels. The US did, in Susan Cohen's words, "go for extradition". These attempts, however, failed. That was precisely the reason for the moves, in which I played a part, to set up a Scottish non-jury court in the Netherlands which might induce the suspects to surrender voluntarily for trial.]