Sunday 21 March 2010

Libya’s feting of Megrahi insults us all

[This is the headline over a column in today's edition of The Sunday Times by regular contributor, Gillian Bowditch. It reads in part:]

When it comes to the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the quality of mercy is looking very strained indeed. Far from dropping like the gentle rain from heaven, it has become a whirlwind which looks set to wreak havoc on the career of the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill.

The only man convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity, which led to the deaths of 270 people in 1988, was released on compassionate grounds last August on the basis that he was close to death. Doctors reportedly gave him three months to live.

Like just about everything else to do with the Lockerbie disaster, this has proved unreliable. Seven months on, Megrahi is still with us — a useful propaganda tool for a Libyan government and a potent symbol in the Middle East of Britain’s wholly inconsistent approach to terrorism. (...)

Megrahi is reputed to have become a national hero in his native land. Mothers are naming their newborn children after him and 30,000 well-wishers are said to have filed past his death bed in the manner of ghoulish medieval pilgrims. Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi’s son Saif, has said the convicted man is “in a good condition”. Treatment with the anti-cancer drug Taxotere is said to be prolonging his life and there is speculation he could live for years. (...)

With the exception of the families of the victims, nobody emerges from this saga well. The Scottish government has attempted to limp lamely onto the high moral ground, citing compassion as a reason for Megrahi’s release. But by allowing a single minister with only two years’ experience of government to take a unilateral decision on an issue which was of international importance, it has not only damaged relations with the US, it has appeared politically naive, inexperienced in international affairs and irresponsible.

It was not that long ago that the British government was portraying Gaddafi as an erratic and dangerous madman. So for the Scottish government to hand over a convicted terrorist to Gaddafi, without preconditions, defies belief. Far from the “three months to live” prognosis, based on the testimony of a single prison doctor and used by the government to justify its controversial decision at the time, Professor Karol Sikora, the cancer expert hired by the Libyan government, who saw Megrahi once, says his report stated that “on the balance of probabilities, there was a 50% chance he would die in three months”. (...)

The Scottish justice system has also been damaged by the debacle, with claims from a UN observer, among others, of a massive miscarriage of justice. Megrahi served eight-and-a-half years of his lifetime sentence handed down at a special hearing in the Netherlands. He chose not to give evidence in his own defence. He was in the middle of an appeal to clear his name at the time of his release, an appeal which had the potential to embarrass the British authorities and America’s FBI and which was dropped just before he was freed.

Had MacAskill had the best interests of Scottish justice in mind, he would have kept Megrahi in Scotland for the appeal. Had the chemotherapy offered to him there been given to him here, we would now be several months into the appeal and closer to the elusive truth. Unless the evidence is tested in a court of law, Megrahi’s protestations are worth little. A full-scale public inquiry would be costly. But justice has not been done nor has it been seen to be done.

The decision of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee last month to consider in private a revised draft report on the decision to free Megrahi, is symptomatic of a lack of transparency. If Megrahi is as well as Saif Gaddafi makes out, he should return to Scotland and clear his name properly. He has experienced mercy; it is time the dead and their relatives experienced real justice.

10 comments:

  1. This woman twists her logic to suggest there are no doubts over the Lockerbie verdict.

    Oh a columnist for the Murdoch yellow press.

    What do you expect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charles,
    I agree. She's got her knickers in a twist.

    All I can say is that it's the usual Times propaganda to serve the interests of the UK government by directing the blame onto the 'naive' and 'inexperienced' MacAskill, who no doubt will put the blame onto the SPS director of health and care, who had access to all Megrahi's medical records.

    While this carry on in the media proceeds what really happened in Megrahi's release remains hidden.

    I have liitle doubt that when the relatives blocked the Prisoner Transfer Agreement with judicial review, the UK government had to find another option to stop the appeal and with their intelligence services concocted Megrahi's release.

    Another oddity apart fron the unnamed doctor and the sheer coincidence of the timing is the fact that no treatment seems to have been proscribed. So did the consultants give their prognosis at a distance based on blood samples and scans, which might not necessarily have been Megrahi's?



    The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

    Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

    The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

    The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ronnie Biggs. Same blood type. Made that up. Who knows?

    It's an interesting angle, Ruth. I'm sure there was some calculated shadiness here, with an eye to quashing the appeal. Just what, I don't know yet. Faked cancer seems pretty risky - you could probably count on Libyan collusion to maintain the cancer story, but what happens when it's 7 months, or 7 years later and he's still alive? It's already getting awkward just over the timetable, let alone clear proof he never had mteastasized anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why is faked cancer risky?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are a number of interesting answers to the question "if Mr Megrahi faked it to get home, and Libya and he have continuously denied doing Lockerbie, why did he not get straight out of his sick bed and walk?". It would have been so easy for the Libyans to have pulled that trick, that I concude he is a sick and dying man, who has rallied because he has the best treatment possible in comfort in his homeland.

    I have sent my exculpation of him to TMC, but never expect to have a reply. Libya is a country that prefers to use a megaphone than the word in the ear.

    I am glad he is free, for whatever the Murdoch press and the like say he was fitted up, like the Brmingham Six and Guildford Four, and indeed there is a commonality of personnel on the forensic side.

    But until we can bully those who did it, I mean the CIA, MI5, Fort Halstead, the so-called investigators into making some sort of admission, or there is a stout journalist and a die-hard publishers with deep lined pockets who is burning to tell the truth, we will have to put up with the thunderstorm of damaging pin-pricks and exemplified in this sort of blog.

    I can put up with this. I haven't believed in the orthodoxy about Mr Megrahi since charges were brought against him in 1991, and I don't intend to to start now.

    If th forces of darkness regard that as a glove thrown down as a challenge it is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is faked cancer risky?

    It runs the risk of exposure. Like all risk, it's manageable, but if not needed, best not taken.

    Why is real cancer (perhaps with an exaggerated prognosis) hard to accept?

    ReplyDelete
  7. But you have to take into account their backs were against the wall. Therefore a risk had to be taken. If Megrahi hadn't been sent home the appeal would have had to continue and it had already been delayed years.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah... I'm an open-minded chap. I'll consider it a possibility worth entertaining, and if you or anyone has a detailed case for it I'd have a look.

    Adam
    http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your remark on Ronne Biggs is more prescient than you may know, CL.

    Biggs' son had been campaigning long and hard for his father's release.

    Then all of a sudden the Minister of Justice, that wicked man and very, very astute politician decided to release him.

    When the Biggs' release happened it set my nose twitching but the son beat me to the drop.

    It would be utterly absurd if a mass-murderer of 270 innocent lives were released before a man who hadn't even wielded the pick axe handle that did for the train driver of the Great Train, and who had died more than a year after the blow (hence could not be prosecuted for murder), would it?

    Straw saw the logic of that, and a asmachine politician of extreme subtle duplicity got rid of his turd on the carpet just before the Scots got rid of theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In general, I suspect a connection. But obviously a pneumonia infested sample would do little to establish a cancer diagnosis.

    ReplyDelete