Monday 4 January 2010

We were right to complain about Lockerbie prisoner pact, says SNP

[This is the headline over an article in today's issue of The Times. It refers to the report in yesterday's issue of The Observer that forms the subject-matter of the blog post that can be read here. The article in The Times reads in part:]

The Scottish government claimed last night it had been fully justified in protesting that Tony Blair’s Government had kept it in the dark about a prisoner transfer agreement negotiated between the UK and Libya.

Its comments came after the publication of e-mails in a Sunday newspaper which revealed that the Government at Westminster had tried to secure the backing of the Scottish government for the deal — which allowed for the release of the Lockerbie bomber — weeks after it had agreed to it in principle in 2007.

The disclosure of the prisoner transfer agreement led to furious exchanges between the UK Government and Alex Salmond’s Scottish Administration, with the Scots saying that they had not been consulted. While the Blair Government responded by saying that the agreement did not specifically refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, in Greenock jail at the time, Mr Salmond pointed out that he was the only Libyan prisoner held in the UK.

A Scottish government spokesman said last night: “This confirms everything that the Scottish government said at the time about how UK ministers kept Scotland in the dark about the prisoner transfer agreement [PTA] process being negotiated by Tony Blair with Libya.

“When we did find out about it, UK ministers at first agreed to our request to have anyone involved in the Lockerbie atrocity excluded from the PTA, but they then reneged on that.”

The e-mails exchanged between both sides in the dispute show civil servants in Whitehall sought to convene a meeting with their Scottish justice counterparts “to establish the UK’s negotiating position” only at the end of June 2007 or the beginning of July 2007. This was more than a month after Mr Blair signed a memorandum of understanding with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, in which both sides agreed to a binding deal to exchange prisoners.

The e-mails can be seen as bolstering claims that the Blair Government was keen to sign the agreement, which has since being linked with wider deals covering arms exports and oil.

In the same month the memorandum was signed, BP agreed a billion-dollar oil deal with Libya, and Britain agreed to sell the former pariah Libyan state water cannons. (...)

The e-mails will serve to reinforce suspicions that the UK Government was willing to ride roughshod over Scottish sensitivities when it came to the Lockerbie bomber.

In an emergency statement at Holyrood at the time, Mr Salmond expressed his fury that the understanding signed between Blair and the Libyans did not specifically exclude al-Megrahi. Over the next few months, Mr Salmond made several requests for al-Megrahi to be excluded from the agreement. In December 2007, Jack Straw finally wrote to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to say that he had been unable to secure such an exclusion and that time had run out.

In the event, the prisoner transfer agreement was not used in the case of al-Megrahi. To the undisguised fury of American relatives of the 270 Lockerbie victims, he was released on the ground of compassion by Mr MacAskill in August last year. The reason for his release was that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and he had only about three months to live. (...)

9 comments:

  1. I hope some people will agree with me that the only reason that Mr Megrahi should have been sent back to Libya was exactly the same as the reason that he was extradited to Zeist in the firat place. He had nothing whatsoever to do with that atrocity, a word I used accurately.

    As far as I can see only a few misguided Americans in VPAF103, Mr Duggan, Mr Marquise and Mr Henderson are entirely convinced of Mr Megrahi's guilt, and the rest of us are a spectrum, ranging from me to those who think the Zeist process may have had some truth in it.

    Various Government spokesmen and women fron either the US, UK or Scottish governments are beginning to say effectively that they rely on process and that they believe Mr M is guilty because he was found so by the Z process. That's a long way from saying he did it.

    I'm very tempted to paste the whole of my claim in one go here, but I don't think the software will let me post 30 pages - it is actually that short.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Poor Mr Marquise! From time to time he posts his opinion in this forum and we should welcome that. I do. But the simple questions we put to him frighten him so that he keeps silent for the next months. Maybe we overestimate him. At least it is obvious that he has no answers when it comes to the essential lack of evidence against Megrahi and the clear evidence against the way the key witnesses in the case were handled.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charles, do you have a link to your claim? I for one am very interested in your views.

    May I remark that Professor Black's blog, though an invaluable resource and a very useful discussion platform, isn't especially suited to working through a process of argument. Some of us, including myself and Caustic Logic, have been trying to discuss the matter on the JREF forum, rather hindered by the subject not being of much interest to many people there. (Very surprising given the huge volumes of debate on 9/11 conspiracy theories in that forum, but there you go.)

    I believe the forum format is a better one for more complex discussions, and JREF is generally well moderated and a good venue for debate. Might I suggest that those with theories they want to test out and debate might consider joining that forum?

    http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php

    ReplyDelete
  4. I tried the link but was blocked by the Internet filter as the site is classified as "Occult". I am very happy to use this site if anybody actually finds my opinion of interest!

    ReplyDelete
  5. That sounds like an odd filter. Randi does have this Khomeini-like stare, and there are the slightest cult-like tendencies among the locals, (lol) but it's proved a workable place to spawn some awesome discussion. It's where Rolfe got me started.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Public library I am afraid - I don't want a modem on my own computer!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I tried the link but was blocked by the Internet filter as the site is classified as "Occult". I am very happy to use this site if anybody actually finds my opinion of interest!

    That's actually hilarious. James Randi is a stage magician, and his main interest is in the debunking of claims that anyone is actually doing anything supernatural or occult! The forum is preoccupied with countering claims of clairvoyance, mindreading, dowsing, telekinesis and similar delusions.

    I can see why an automatic filter might have got the wrong idea. However, the site is specifically designed as an educational resource (it's the "James Randi Educational Foundation"), and Mr. Randi goes to great lengths to keep the content suitable for access by schoolchildren.

    I think your librarian would take the site off the ban list, if you explained it to him or her.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MISSION LOCKERBIE:

    'Flaws' in key Lockerbie evidence
    Tests aimed at reproducing the blast appear to undermine the case's central forensic link, based on a tiny fragment identified as part of a bomb timer.
    The tests suggest the fragment, which linked the attack to Megrahi, would not have survived the mid-air explosion.
    The fragment was embedded in a charred piece of clothing, which was marked with a label saying it was made in Malta.
    So the focus turned to Malta and the question of who had bought the clothes.

    An investigation by BBC's Newsnight has cast doubts on the key piece of evidence which convicted the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
    Watch Peter Marshall's full report on the Lockerbie bomb evidence on Newsnight at 2230 GMT on BBC Two, then afterwards on the Newsnight website.

    More information on: The second part of the chronology,
    "The Fraud of the MST-13 (PT-35) fragment";
    on our website: www.lockerbie.ch

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, that turned out to be an awesome show. BBC is earning back part of its reputation on the issue. Still got a ways to go after that awful 2008 show.

    ReplyDelete