[The following are excerpts relating to Lockerbie and Megrahi from Newsnet Scotland's "Scottish News in 2010 - A Look Back".]
July – Scottish News Stories:
It emerges that a number of US Senators have written a letter to the UK’s ambassador with concerns over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The ambassador informs the senators that much of what they understand is actually based on inaccurate UK newspaper reports. Only lazy journalists, fools and those with an agenda would run the senator’s claims without properly scrutinising them.
So it proves as the story is picked up by the UK media and BBC Scotland in particular and a long running campaign of misinformation begins.
August – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland reports that ‘US lawmakers’ are unhappy with the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. No the lawmakers aren’t Wyatt and Earl Earp, it is the same poorly informed US Senators from July and the BBC are keen to headline anything and everything they say, regardless of accuracy.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien defends the decision to release Megrahi and questions the appropriateness of US politicians attacking a decision that was based on compassion, something lacking in US penal institutions says the Cardinal.
September – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland continues to treat commentary from poorly informed American Senators over the Megrahi issue as though it had merit. Raymond Buchanan tells us that relations have been ‘harmed’ over what he calls a ‘senate Lockerbie investigation’.
December – Scottish News Stories:
Wikileaks documents exonerate the SNP over its handling of the Megrahi release process. The documents highlight the hypocrisy of the Labour party who were secretly trying to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya then publicly denounced the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. BBC Scotland further tarnished its reputation by ignoring the revelations that damaged Labour and instead focussed on comments from Jack Straw they said called into question MacAskill's claim that he alone took the final decision.
A commentary on the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of the murder of 270 people in the Pan Am 103 disaster.
Friday, 31 December 2010
Thursday, 30 December 2010
We must strive to restore the integrity of criminal justice process
[This is the heading over a letter from Glasgow Liberal Democrat councillor Christopher Mason in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
There is a worrying contradiction between the standards being applied in the cases of Tommy Sheridan and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Sheridan was prosecuted because perjury threatens the whole justice system; but the British and Scottish establishments are apparently indifferent to the doubts expressed about the integrity of Megrahi’s trial and, indeed, the second appeal process.
The crux of the criticisms is that neither the forensic evidence about the timer nor the identification evidence provided by the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci should have been accepted as sound. These criticisms are contained, we are led to believe, in the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which recommended in June 2007 that a second appeal should be heard. The second appeal process was stymied by the refusal of British and American authorities to allow some of the documents to be dealt with by the court in the normal manner; if it had been heard promptly it would have been disposed of one way or the other before Megrahi’s release on health grounds ever became an issue.
Without the forensic evidence and Gauci’s evidence, Megrahi and Fahima could not have been prosecuted. There are allegations that this evidence was tainted. I do not understand why those who thought the Scottish justice system was seriously threatened by perjured evidence in Sheridan’s civil case against a newspaper, cannot find a way of looking into our criminal justice system in relation to the allegation that the most important criminal trial of the 20th century proceeded on the basis of false evidence.
Although 22 years have passed since 270 innocent people were murdered by whomever planted the Lockerbie bomb, this is not just a matter of historical interest or even of justice for the families of the victims. In the continuing campaign to deal with terrorism, the known integrity of our justice system will be essential to success. That is one of the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from Northern Ireland: false convictions do more harm than good.
One of the best defences against the crime of terrorism is the known integrity of the normal criminal justice process. To restore public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system when dealing with terrorism, the Scottish Parliament should find some way of allowing the court to hear and dispose of the matters raised in the SCCRC 2007 report.
There is a worrying contradiction between the standards being applied in the cases of Tommy Sheridan and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Sheridan was prosecuted because perjury threatens the whole justice system; but the British and Scottish establishments are apparently indifferent to the doubts expressed about the integrity of Megrahi’s trial and, indeed, the second appeal process.
The crux of the criticisms is that neither the forensic evidence about the timer nor the identification evidence provided by the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci should have been accepted as sound. These criticisms are contained, we are led to believe, in the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which recommended in June 2007 that a second appeal should be heard. The second appeal process was stymied by the refusal of British and American authorities to allow some of the documents to be dealt with by the court in the normal manner; if it had been heard promptly it would have been disposed of one way or the other before Megrahi’s release on health grounds ever became an issue.
Without the forensic evidence and Gauci’s evidence, Megrahi and Fahima could not have been prosecuted. There are allegations that this evidence was tainted. I do not understand why those who thought the Scottish justice system was seriously threatened by perjured evidence in Sheridan’s civil case against a newspaper, cannot find a way of looking into our criminal justice system in relation to the allegation that the most important criminal trial of the 20th century proceeded on the basis of false evidence.
Although 22 years have passed since 270 innocent people were murdered by whomever planted the Lockerbie bomb, this is not just a matter of historical interest or even of justice for the families of the victims. In the continuing campaign to deal with terrorism, the known integrity of our justice system will be essential to success. That is one of the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from Northern Ireland: false convictions do more harm than good.
One of the best defences against the crime of terrorism is the known integrity of the normal criminal justice process. To restore public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system when dealing with terrorism, the Scottish Parliament should find some way of allowing the court to hear and dispose of the matters raised in the SCCRC 2007 report.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Befuddlement and anger at Scottish Government’s stance
[A long article by Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, appears today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It raises many interesting issues about the recent report by Senator Robert Menendez et al into the repatriation of Abdebaset Megrahi and about official reaction to JFM's call for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into his conviction. On the Scottish Government's stonewalling on the establishment of such an inquiry, Mr Forrester has this to say:]
SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.
On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.
It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off.
SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.
On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.
It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off.
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
We should stop distracting ourselves from finding out the real truth about Lockerbie
[This is the heading over three letters in today's edition of The Herald. They read as follows:]
How well Jim Swire’s dignified search for truth contrasts with the bloodthirsty baying of some American politicians (Letters, December 24). Make no mistake, the central objection to the Megrahi affair in the United States is that he was tried in a justice system where the end result was not a lethal injection; everything else is just an attempt to build on that.
The modus operandi of the Senate inquiry was to reach a conclusion and then look for evidence that might support it, exactly what an American trial of Megrahi would likely have been. For some Scottish politicians to attempt to lend credibility to this circus for some short-term political gain is extremely unedifying and something that they should be ashamed of.
The question should not be whether Megrahi’s family should be able to be with him for his last days but whether he was guilty at all and if so who his accomplices were. To simply accept what now seems to be a rather shaky conviction is one thing, to not bother to ask whether one man could do all of this on his own is quite another. It is no conspiracy theory to point out that atrocities like Lockerbie are carefully planned and executed and not just the work of one rogue security agent. We should stop distracting ourselves from this central question.
Iain Paterson
Jim Swire has written a moving and passionate letter in which he continues to plead eloquently for some way to be found to re-examine the evidence and the decision of the Camp Zeist trial. After more than 20 years, the tragedy of the PanAm 103 bombing has still not been resolved satisfactorily, and the latest pathetic attempt by a group of ill-informed and prejudiced US senators, with little knowledge or appreciation of the points at issue, will not help.
We in Scotland should be much more concerned about the quality, reliability and fairness of the Scottish justice system. As pointed out by Nigel Dewar Gibb, comments such as those from John Lamont, the Tory MSP shadow spokesman, are unhelpful, as are the constant refusals of the UK government and the Scottish legal authorities to allow further investigation.
I learned my Scots Law, and my pride and confidence in the Scottish justice system, at the feet of Andrew Dewar Gibb, Professor of Scots Law at Glasgow University (coincidentally the father of Nigel Dewar Gibb). If he were alive today I am sure Professor Dewar Gibb would be adding his voice to those demanding a full public inquiry or a re-opening of the second appeal abandoned by Mr Megrahi so abruptly. Nothing less will satisfy those of us who wish justice to be done and seen to be done.
Iain A D Mann
Once again the consistently impressive and humbling Jim Swire hits on the salient point about the Lockerbie atrocity. It is a disgrace that we do not know for certain who carried out this crime, or why. We have been given serious doubts by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to question the truth surrounding the conviction of Mr Megrahi. The vacuous critical noises from politicians in this country and the US regarding the release of Megrahi are opportunistic political point scoring or, worse, an attempt to create a smoke screen around the real issues of guilt and responsibility.
Iain Carmichael
How well Jim Swire’s dignified search for truth contrasts with the bloodthirsty baying of some American politicians (Letters, December 24). Make no mistake, the central objection to the Megrahi affair in the United States is that he was tried in a justice system where the end result was not a lethal injection; everything else is just an attempt to build on that.
The modus operandi of the Senate inquiry was to reach a conclusion and then look for evidence that might support it, exactly what an American trial of Megrahi would likely have been. For some Scottish politicians to attempt to lend credibility to this circus for some short-term political gain is extremely unedifying and something that they should be ashamed of.
The question should not be whether Megrahi’s family should be able to be with him for his last days but whether he was guilty at all and if so who his accomplices were. To simply accept what now seems to be a rather shaky conviction is one thing, to not bother to ask whether one man could do all of this on his own is quite another. It is no conspiracy theory to point out that atrocities like Lockerbie are carefully planned and executed and not just the work of one rogue security agent. We should stop distracting ourselves from this central question.
Iain Paterson
Jim Swire has written a moving and passionate letter in which he continues to plead eloquently for some way to be found to re-examine the evidence and the decision of the Camp Zeist trial. After more than 20 years, the tragedy of the PanAm 103 bombing has still not been resolved satisfactorily, and the latest pathetic attempt by a group of ill-informed and prejudiced US senators, with little knowledge or appreciation of the points at issue, will not help.
We in Scotland should be much more concerned about the quality, reliability and fairness of the Scottish justice system. As pointed out by Nigel Dewar Gibb, comments such as those from John Lamont, the Tory MSP shadow spokesman, are unhelpful, as are the constant refusals of the UK government and the Scottish legal authorities to allow further investigation.
I learned my Scots Law, and my pride and confidence in the Scottish justice system, at the feet of Andrew Dewar Gibb, Professor of Scots Law at Glasgow University (coincidentally the father of Nigel Dewar Gibb). If he were alive today I am sure Professor Dewar Gibb would be adding his voice to those demanding a full public inquiry or a re-opening of the second appeal abandoned by Mr Megrahi so abruptly. Nothing less will satisfy those of us who wish justice to be done and seen to be done.
Iain A D Mann
Once again the consistently impressive and humbling Jim Swire hits on the salient point about the Lockerbie atrocity. It is a disgrace that we do not know for certain who carried out this crime, or why. We have been given serious doubts by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to question the truth surrounding the conviction of Mr Megrahi. The vacuous critical noises from politicians in this country and the US regarding the release of Megrahi are opportunistic political point scoring or, worse, an attempt to create a smoke screen around the real issues of guilt and responsibility.
Iain Carmichael
Two contrasting perspectives
In today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle there is an article by conservative columnist Debra J Saunders headlined "Libya, Lockerbie and commercial warfare". It swallows hook, line and sinker the fantasies peddled by Senator Menendez et al in their report on the release of Megrahi.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Waiting for answers two decades later
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by columnist Mike Kelly on the website of The Record, a newspaper covering Bergen County, New Jersey. The first three and the last five paragraphs read as follows:]
Almost a quarter century ago, a terrorist bomb blew apart Pam Am Flight 103 in the icy December sky over Scotland, killing all 259 passengers, including 38 from New Jersey. Sadly, we’re still searching for the complete truth.
The latest effort to pin down the facts comes from the four US senators from New Jersey and New York. But their report, released last week, while laudable in some ways nevertheless still leaves open too many questions.
Maybe it’s politics or maybe it’s just the weird and frustrating jinx that has hampered almost every attempt to examine the Pan Am 103 bombing, but this kind of incomplete investigative work is getting tiresome. The Pan Am 103 bombing took place Dec 21, 1988 – with many of the college-age passengers flying home for the Christmas holidays from studying overseas. It’s time for some hard answers. (...)
From almost the moment that Pan Am 103 fell from the sky 22 years ago, the attempt by the US government to find answers has been a series of political brick walls. Families of some New Jersey victims were so angry with responses from President George H Bush in 1989 that they marched to the White House and placed letters in the fence.
I was there that day. Watching decent Americans try to persuade their government to provide answers about why their kids were murdered was a sad sight.
But that sad journey for answers continued through the Clinton administration and into the second Bush administration – and now, apparently, with Obama.
This latest report does not alter that journey.
In some ways, it makes the pain worse.
Almost a quarter century ago, a terrorist bomb blew apart Pam Am Flight 103 in the icy December sky over Scotland, killing all 259 passengers, including 38 from New Jersey. Sadly, we’re still searching for the complete truth.
The latest effort to pin down the facts comes from the four US senators from New Jersey and New York. But their report, released last week, while laudable in some ways nevertheless still leaves open too many questions.
Maybe it’s politics or maybe it’s just the weird and frustrating jinx that has hampered almost every attempt to examine the Pan Am 103 bombing, but this kind of incomplete investigative work is getting tiresome. The Pan Am 103 bombing took place Dec 21, 1988 – with many of the college-age passengers flying home for the Christmas holidays from studying overseas. It’s time for some hard answers. (...)
From almost the moment that Pan Am 103 fell from the sky 22 years ago, the attempt by the US government to find answers has been a series of political brick walls. Families of some New Jersey victims were so angry with responses from President George H Bush in 1989 that they marched to the White House and placed letters in the fence.
I was there that day. Watching decent Americans try to persuade their government to provide answers about why their kids were murdered was a sad sight.
But that sad journey for answers continued through the Clinton administration and into the second Bush administration – and now, apparently, with Obama.
This latest report does not alter that journey.
In some ways, it makes the pain worse.
Megrahi verdict is the key issue
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
[T]here is a far more important issue than questions about the release of Megrahi, found guilty at Zeist of the Lockerbie bombing.
For so many who have heard and studied the evidence led against him, and the performance of his defence team in that court, the verdict looked untenable under any recognisable form of Scottish criminal law. It is hard to believe that a Scottish jury could ever have convicted him. Could 15 sufficiently naive Scots have been found? I doubt it.
"Reasonable doubt" was left unanswered at so many points, yet it is supposed to be necessary to exclude it entirely before a criminal guilty verdict is reached. He was not securely identified as the buyer of clothes in Malta, nor was there any proof that he breached security at Malta airport. It was only afterwards that we learned of the break-in at Heathrow, a far more likely route to the doomed plane's hold than Malta ever was. Only afterwards did we learn that the Scottish investigating police knew before the case came to court that the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci who "thought Megrahi looked like the clothes buyer" and, who was a key witness, knew that Megrahi's conviction would land him a prize of $2,000,000. Why did the police not tell the court that?
Let's review the verdict and see if it stands, rather than continue to rabbit on about his release which many, myself included, think was the right and responsible move for Kenny MacAskill to make.
If all the commentators on this ghastly case had been crammed into the court's public gallery, I think they would be raging for a review of the verdict, not endlessly discussing his release. If the verdict was unjust, as so many believe, what must the real culprits think of Scotland now? Some of us want to be sure about who killed all those people. It's Scotland's call.
[T]here is a far more important issue than questions about the release of Megrahi, found guilty at Zeist of the Lockerbie bombing.
For so many who have heard and studied the evidence led against him, and the performance of his defence team in that court, the verdict looked untenable under any recognisable form of Scottish criminal law. It is hard to believe that a Scottish jury could ever have convicted him. Could 15 sufficiently naive Scots have been found? I doubt it.
"Reasonable doubt" was left unanswered at so many points, yet it is supposed to be necessary to exclude it entirely before a criminal guilty verdict is reached. He was not securely identified as the buyer of clothes in Malta, nor was there any proof that he breached security at Malta airport. It was only afterwards that we learned of the break-in at Heathrow, a far more likely route to the doomed plane's hold than Malta ever was. Only afterwards did we learn that the Scottish investigating police knew before the case came to court that the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci who "thought Megrahi looked like the clothes buyer" and, who was a key witness, knew that Megrahi's conviction would land him a prize of $2,000,000. Why did the police not tell the court that?
Let's review the verdict and see if it stands, rather than continue to rabbit on about his release which many, myself included, think was the right and responsible move for Kenny MacAskill to make.
If all the commentators on this ghastly case had been crammed into the court's public gallery, I think they would be raging for a review of the verdict, not endlessly discussing his release. If the verdict was unjust, as so many believe, what must the real culprits think of Scotland now? Some of us want to be sure about who killed all those people. It's Scotland's call.
Saturday, 25 December 2010
The dangers of over-classification
[This is the heading over a post by Oliver Miles (former UK ambassador to Libya) on the London Review of Books blog. It reads in part:]
For the most part [in the WikiLeaks cables] we see able, professional diplomats doing their best to understand and report on the places where they’re stationed, as anyone familiar with the State Department would expect. Those I have looked at (mostly from or concerning the Middle East) are classified up to ‘secret’, which is supposed to mean the information in them would cause ‘grave damage’ to national security if made public. One lesson is that over-classification, which is a form of bad security, is even more prevalent in the State Department today than it was in the British diplomatic service when I served in it. The most recent cables are a few months old. Most of the information in them, though of interest to specialists, is not particularly new.
One report which does contain some new information was sent from the US embassy in Libya in December 2009, giving details of discussions with the Libyans about possible arms sales – though evidence that the US was considering such deals was already in the public domain, for example in the list of members on the website of the US-Libya Business Association. It’s amusing that these US-Libyan discussions took place at the same time as – and are much wider in scope than – British-Libyan discussions on the same subject, produced as evidence of a corrupt relationship in the recent report by four US senators on the Megrahi affair.
For the most part [in the WikiLeaks cables] we see able, professional diplomats doing their best to understand and report on the places where they’re stationed, as anyone familiar with the State Department would expect. Those I have looked at (mostly from or concerning the Middle East) are classified up to ‘secret’, which is supposed to mean the information in them would cause ‘grave damage’ to national security if made public. One lesson is that over-classification, which is a form of bad security, is even more prevalent in the State Department today than it was in the British diplomatic service when I served in it. The most recent cables are a few months old. Most of the information in them, though of interest to specialists, is not particularly new.
One report which does contain some new information was sent from the US embassy in Libya in December 2009, giving details of discussions with the Libyans about possible arms sales – though evidence that the US was considering such deals was already in the public domain, for example in the list of members on the website of the US-Libya Business Association. It’s amusing that these US-Libyan discussions took place at the same time as – and are much wider in scope than – British-Libyan discussions on the same subject, produced as evidence of a corrupt relationship in the recent report by four US senators on the Megrahi affair.
Friday, 24 December 2010
We must not be afraid to pursue the truth about the bombing of PanAm Flight 103
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Swissair 1970, Pan Am 1988?
On the website of the Swiss magazine Beobachter there is a long article drawing parallels between the destruction of a Swissair aircraft en route from Zürich to Tel Aviv in 1970 and the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988. Apparently the Lockerbie investigators were so struck by the similarities that they spent a considerable time conferring with the Swiss. However, as we know, the focus of the Lockerbie investigation eventually switched from Palestinian terrorist groups to Libya. The Beobachter article sets out why this might have been a mistake. The article, in German, can be read here.
Wikipedia's article on the crash of Swissair Flight 330 at Würenlingen can be read here.
Wikipedia's article on the crash of Swissair Flight 330 at Würenlingen can be read here.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
This Lockerbie bomber nonsense shows US senators have lost the plot
The US Senate's conspiracy theory about Megrahi shows just how ignorant it is of British politics, writes Alan Cochrane.
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
'Bonkers' US claim on bomber
[This is the headline over the report in The Sun on the four US senators' report on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Government urged to release secret files
[This is the headline over a report by Bob Smyth in this week's edition of The Sunday Post. It is not on the newspaper's website but has just been sent to me. It reads as follows:]
The Scottish Government is under pressure to change the law to allow the release of secret files on the Lockerbie case.
Campaigners desperately want to study an 800-page dossier on bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s abandoned appeal.
They say the Scottish Government could change the legislation to allow that — but they are stalling.
The row erupted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission revealed earlier this month it had failed to get the green light to release details of its “statement of reasons” for referring Megrahi’s case back to court for the appeal. That’s because the law requires that all those involved agree to the release of the files.
The main parties include Megrahi, the Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police. It’s understood none have given the required unqualified consent.
The Scottish Government admits it’s disappointed the information couldn’t be made public and says it will now consider a law change to get round the need to get the go-ahead from all those involved.
But ministers say it would need the lengthy process of an Act of Parliament to do that.
Campaigners who doubt Megrahi’s guilt say this “primary legislation” is not necessary and the change could be done a lot quicker through a simple variation of the legal order that put the consent rule in place.
MSP Christine Grahame, who is battling for answers on Lockerbie, has tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament. It says she is unsurprised consent wasn’t given and calls for the Scottish Government to repeal or amend the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order.
She has also lodged a question, asking ministers if they’ll delete the part of the order that says everyone’s consent is needed.
She said, “I don’t understand the suggestion that primary legislation is necessary. There would be no time to get it through the Parliament before next year’s elections.
“It could be done before then in the way I have suggested.”
She said the consent requirements amount to a “gagging order”.
“Given that the Crown Office, the police and the UK Government are involved, why would they possibly agree to a release of information that might show that Megrahi should never have been found guilty?
“They’ve just stonewalled the whole thing.”
Professor Robert Black, a legal expert who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agreed a change to the law could be done quicker.
He said, “It doesn’t have to be an Act of Parliament and go through all the committee procedure and other stages that entails.
“When the Scottish Government say they’re considering primary legislation, given that’s not necessary, we have to ask what they are playing at.
“The suspicion is they are simply adopting delaying tactics.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said, “Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected.”
The Scottish Government is under pressure to change the law to allow the release of secret files on the Lockerbie case.
Campaigners desperately want to study an 800-page dossier on bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s abandoned appeal.
They say the Scottish Government could change the legislation to allow that — but they are stalling.
The row erupted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission revealed earlier this month it had failed to get the green light to release details of its “statement of reasons” for referring Megrahi’s case back to court for the appeal. That’s because the law requires that all those involved agree to the release of the files.
The main parties include Megrahi, the Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police. It’s understood none have given the required unqualified consent.
The Scottish Government admits it’s disappointed the information couldn’t be made public and says it will now consider a law change to get round the need to get the go-ahead from all those involved.
But ministers say it would need the lengthy process of an Act of Parliament to do that.
Campaigners who doubt Megrahi’s guilt say this “primary legislation” is not necessary and the change could be done a lot quicker through a simple variation of the legal order that put the consent rule in place.
MSP Christine Grahame, who is battling for answers on Lockerbie, has tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament. It says she is unsurprised consent wasn’t given and calls for the Scottish Government to repeal or amend the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order.
She has also lodged a question, asking ministers if they’ll delete the part of the order that says everyone’s consent is needed.
She said, “I don’t understand the suggestion that primary legislation is necessary. There would be no time to get it through the Parliament before next year’s elections.
“It could be done before then in the way I have suggested.”
She said the consent requirements amount to a “gagging order”.
“Given that the Crown Office, the police and the UK Government are involved, why would they possibly agree to a release of information that might show that Megrahi should never have been found guilty?
“They’ve just stonewalled the whole thing.”
Professor Robert Black, a legal expert who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agreed a change to the law could be done quicker.
He said, “It doesn’t have to be an Act of Parliament and go through all the committee procedure and other stages that entails.
“When the Scottish Government say they’re considering primary legislation, given that’s not necessary, we have to ask what they are playing at.
“The suspicion is they are simply adopting delaying tactics.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said, “Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected.”
UK officials greased Lockerbie bomber's release, report finds
[This is the headline over an article just published on the msnbc.com website based on an advance copy of the report to be issued today by US Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Schumer and Gillibrand. It reads in part:]
Intense political pressures and "commercial warfare" waged by the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi led to last year’s release of the "unrepentant terrorist" who blew up Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, according to a new report prepared by four US senators.
The report is being released Tuesday, 22 years to the day after a terrorist bomb exploded aboard the Pan Am airliner, killing 270 people — including 189 Americans — in one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11.
An advance copy of the report – titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber — was provided to NBC News.
The report finds that senior officials under former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown quietly and repeatedly pressured Scottish authorities to release Abdel Baset Ali al-al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing.
They did so in order to protect British business interests in Libya, including a $900 million BP oil deal that the Libyans had threatened to cut off, as well as a $165 million arms sale with a British defense firm that was signed the same month al-Megrahi was freed from prison, the report states.
“This was a case in which commercial and economic considerations trumped the message of our global fight against terrorism,” said Sen Bob Menendez, D-NJ, one of the four senators, who commissioned the report by a Senate investigator.
"God forbid there should be another terrorist attack. We have to make it impossible that anything like this injustice takes place again," he added.
The report also concludes that, in releasing Megrahi last year on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had only three months to live, Scottish authorities relied on a "false" and "flawed" medical prognosis that was possibly influenced by a doctor hired by the Libyan government. (Although there were recent reports that Megrahi was in a coma, that account has been disputed. As the Senate report notes, he remains alive, reportedly living in a luxury villa in Tripoli.)
The Senate report calls for a renewed investigation into Megrahi’s release by the State Department and a public apology by both the British and Scottish governments.
That request was rejected this week by both British and Scottish officials. "We totally reject their false interpretation," a Scottish government spokesperson said in an emailed response to NBC News. The decision to release Megrahi "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations, but on the precepts of Scots law and nothing else."
[For those with a strong stomach, the full report by the four senators can be read here.
There is now a report on the Telegraph website which can be read here.]
Intense political pressures and "commercial warfare" waged by the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi led to last year’s release of the "unrepentant terrorist" who blew up Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, according to a new report prepared by four US senators.
The report is being released Tuesday, 22 years to the day after a terrorist bomb exploded aboard the Pan Am airliner, killing 270 people — including 189 Americans — in one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11.
An advance copy of the report – titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber — was provided to NBC News.
The report finds that senior officials under former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown quietly and repeatedly pressured Scottish authorities to release Abdel Baset Ali al-al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing.
They did so in order to protect British business interests in Libya, including a $900 million BP oil deal that the Libyans had threatened to cut off, as well as a $165 million arms sale with a British defense firm that was signed the same month al-Megrahi was freed from prison, the report states.
“This was a case in which commercial and economic considerations trumped the message of our global fight against terrorism,” said Sen Bob Menendez, D-NJ, one of the four senators, who commissioned the report by a Senate investigator.
"God forbid there should be another terrorist attack. We have to make it impossible that anything like this injustice takes place again," he added.
The report also concludes that, in releasing Megrahi last year on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had only three months to live, Scottish authorities relied on a "false" and "flawed" medical prognosis that was possibly influenced by a doctor hired by the Libyan government. (Although there were recent reports that Megrahi was in a coma, that account has been disputed. As the Senate report notes, he remains alive, reportedly living in a luxury villa in Tripoli.)
The Senate report calls for a renewed investigation into Megrahi’s release by the State Department and a public apology by both the British and Scottish governments.
That request was rejected this week by both British and Scottish officials. "We totally reject their false interpretation," a Scottish government spokesperson said in an emailed response to NBC News. The decision to release Megrahi "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations, but on the precepts of Scots law and nothing else."
[For those with a strong stomach, the full report by the four senators can be read here.
There is now a report on the Telegraph website which can be read here.]
More shameless politicking
Senator to unveil finding of Scotland's release of Pan Am bomber
Sen Robert Menendez will unveil Tuesday the results of his office's investigation into the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi.
The results are expected on the 22nd anniversary of the bombing, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground.
Al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last year on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months. But Menendez has asserted he is not terminally ill.
The lawmaker said he undertook the investigation after British and Scottish officials refused to testify at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing he was scheduled to chair in July.
[The above is the opening section of a report just published on the CNN ebsite.]
Sen Robert Menendez will unveil Tuesday the results of his office's investigation into the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi.
The results are expected on the 22nd anniversary of the bombing, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground.
Al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last year on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months. But Menendez has asserted he is not terminally ill.
The lawmaker said he undertook the investigation after British and Scottish officials refused to testify at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing he was scheduled to chair in July.
[The above is the opening section of a report just published on the CNN ebsite.]
Tory politicking on Lockerbie anniversary
[Today is the twenty-second anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster. A number of print and broadcast media run commemorative features and interviews with relatives of victims. Two examples can be found here and here.
But the Scottish Conservative Party has chosen today to launch a further attack on the compassionate release in August 2009 of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A report in today's edition of The Herald reads in part:]
The Conservatives have renewed their attack on the decision to release the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on the 22nd anniversary of the atrocity. (...)
Conservative justice spokesman John Lamont said yesterday: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly.
“But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves.
“That is something he denied his victims.” (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said last night: “Our thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected by the events of that terrible night, but most especially the families and relatives, wherever they are in the world.
“Scotland’s justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for 22 years and in every regard the due process of Scots law has been followed – in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.”
[The Tory Party in Scotland is moribund. In this year's UK general election it won one Scottish seat out of a total of fifty-nine. In the light of political crassness such as is displayed in the above statement, it is not difficult to see why.]
But the Scottish Conservative Party has chosen today to launch a further attack on the compassionate release in August 2009 of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A report in today's edition of The Herald reads in part:]
The Conservatives have renewed their attack on the decision to release the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on the 22nd anniversary of the atrocity. (...)
Conservative justice spokesman John Lamont said yesterday: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly.
“But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves.
“That is something he denied his victims.” (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said last night: “Our thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected by the events of that terrible night, but most especially the families and relatives, wherever they are in the world.
“Scotland’s justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for 22 years and in every regard the due process of Scots law has been followed – in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.”
[The Tory Party in Scotland is moribund. In this year's UK general election it won one Scottish seat out of a total of fifty-nine. In the light of political crassness such as is displayed in the above statement, it is not difficult to see why.]
Monday, 20 December 2010
Tell the truth over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Morning Star. It reads in part:]
A Scottish MSP accused the Foreign Office and other interested parties today of using legal blocks to hide evidence in a review of the conviction of the only man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing.
Christine Grahame of the Scottish National Party called for a change to legislation which has allowed the Foreign Office, Crown Office and other parties to "block" publication of a report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. (...)
The SCCRC conducted a review of the conviction and found that a potential miscarriage of justice may have occurred. But the commission has been prevented from publishing its Statement of Reasons after the Foreign Office and Crown Office apparently refused permission.
Under the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, interested third parties can refuse permission for disclosure of evidence they directly or indirectly provided to an investigation.
Ms Grahame told the Star that the law effectively acted as "a gagging order" and said that the Scottish government should amend it to allow publication of all the evidence in the case.
Ms Grahame has tabled a parliamentary motion arguing that, under the order: "Third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them."
That meant, she said, that "parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked."
She urged the government to repeal or amend the order "in the interests of openness, accountability and justice."
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, told MSPs at Holyrood last month: "I now believe that Scottish justice's verdict on this man is not safe, it must be re-examined.
"And until it is, the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter."
A Scottish government spokesperson said: "The Scottish government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible on this issue.
"Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected."
The Foreign Office had not responded by time of press.
A Scottish MSP accused the Foreign Office and other interested parties today of using legal blocks to hide evidence in a review of the conviction of the only man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing.
Christine Grahame of the Scottish National Party called for a change to legislation which has allowed the Foreign Office, Crown Office and other parties to "block" publication of a report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. (...)
The SCCRC conducted a review of the conviction and found that a potential miscarriage of justice may have occurred. But the commission has been prevented from publishing its Statement of Reasons after the Foreign Office and Crown Office apparently refused permission.
Under the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, interested third parties can refuse permission for disclosure of evidence they directly or indirectly provided to an investigation.
Ms Grahame told the Star that the law effectively acted as "a gagging order" and said that the Scottish government should amend it to allow publication of all the evidence in the case.
Ms Grahame has tabled a parliamentary motion arguing that, under the order: "Third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them."
That meant, she said, that "parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked."
She urged the government to repeal or amend the order "in the interests of openness, accountability and justice."
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, told MSPs at Holyrood last month: "I now believe that Scottish justice's verdict on this man is not safe, it must be re-examined.
"And until it is, the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter."
A Scottish government spokesperson said: "The Scottish government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible on this issue.
"Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected."
The Foreign Office had not responded by time of press.
Timeline of events leading to Megrahi's release
A useful timeline can be found here on the 24dash.com website.
Another Lockerbie bomb is set to go off
[This is the heading over an article by George Galloway on his blog on the Daily Record website. It reads as follows:]
I'm going to Libya in the first week of the new year with Mick Devine, of the Scottish-Libyan business link, and Celtic supporters champion Brian Dempsey. The priority is to win business orders for Scots companies and thus jobs for Scottish workers. But if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is still alive and conscious, I hope to speak with him.
If not, I'm promised discussions with those in possession of the kind of evidence which will explode the real scandal.
Not that the Scottish government released Megrahi from jail but that the Crown kept Megrahi behind bars when they knew he was an innocent man.
In any case, I will be discussing these issues at the highest levels and I give the Crown Office fair notice that if I get to Holyrood, I'm going to unmask this conspiracy.
The Scottish Crown Office is in all sorts of trouble now but that's as nothing, compared to the storm brewing for them if I get elected to the Scottish Parliament in May.
There are several decisions they have made which I shall be pursuing but none is as serious as the case of Megrahi. The Scottish government took abuse for releasing him on compassionate grounds due to his imminent demise, now so imminent that even the most hardened cynic should shut up, surely.
The First Minister was even accused of seeking Libyan largesse for Scotland in return for the release now debunked by the Wikileaks revelations that Scotland turned down "a parade of goodies", as Salmond always insisted.
But the real scandal is not that he was released but that he was incarcerated for so long in the first place.
The appeal against conviction, which he was forced to withdraw for no necessary legal reason, contained material so explosive as to put even the murderous attack on the airliner into the shade.
Those who placed the bomb on board PanAm 103 were terrorists. The bombs in Megrahi's appeal all relate to the Crown Office.
I believe they knew the Libyan was innocent and he was convicted on trumped-up charges, while his country was falsely accused.
I'm going to Libya in the first week of the new year with Mick Devine, of the Scottish-Libyan business link, and Celtic supporters champion Brian Dempsey. The priority is to win business orders for Scots companies and thus jobs for Scottish workers. But if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is still alive and conscious, I hope to speak with him.
If not, I'm promised discussions with those in possession of the kind of evidence which will explode the real scandal.
Not that the Scottish government released Megrahi from jail but that the Crown kept Megrahi behind bars when they knew he was an innocent man.
In any case, I will be discussing these issues at the highest levels and I give the Crown Office fair notice that if I get to Holyrood, I'm going to unmask this conspiracy.
The Scottish Crown Office is in all sorts of trouble now but that's as nothing, compared to the storm brewing for them if I get elected to the Scottish Parliament in May.
There are several decisions they have made which I shall be pursuing but none is as serious as the case of Megrahi. The Scottish government took abuse for releasing him on compassionate grounds due to his imminent demise, now so imminent that even the most hardened cynic should shut up, surely.
The First Minister was even accused of seeking Libyan largesse for Scotland in return for the release now debunked by the Wikileaks revelations that Scotland turned down "a parade of goodies", as Salmond always insisted.
But the real scandal is not that he was released but that he was incarcerated for so long in the first place.
The appeal against conviction, which he was forced to withdraw for no necessary legal reason, contained material so explosive as to put even the murderous attack on the airliner into the shade.
Those who placed the bomb on board PanAm 103 were terrorists. The bombs in Megrahi's appeal all relate to the Crown Office.
I believe they knew the Libyan was innocent and he was convicted on trumped-up charges, while his country was falsely accused.
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Lockerbie bomber's family set to appeal
[This is the headline over a report by Ben Borland in today's edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]
Two of the Lockerbie bomber’s children are set to launch an appeal against his conviction within days of his death, the Sunday Express understands.
Ghada and Khaled al-Megrahi are determined to clear their father’s name and have been working hard behind the scenes to prepare another legal challenge in the Scottish courts.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is believed to be close to death in a coma in a Libyan hospital, dropped his second appeal shortly before his compassionate release in August 2009.
Ghada, 27, who is a qualified lawyer in Tripoli, and Khaled, 24, now plan to use the evidence gathered by his legal team, much of which has never been in the public domain before.
Legal experts said there is a much greater likelihood of an appeal being granted after death if the request comes from a member of the convicted person’s immediate family.
Both siblings, the eldest of Megrahi’s five children, spent many years in Scotland and are understood to be confident about tackling the intricacies of the legal system.
Families campaigner Jim Swire, who met the entire family when he flew to Tripoli to visit Megrahi recently, said they were determined to ensure that the “fight goes on” after his death.
“Between the two of them they know what they are going to do,” he added.
Khaled has also signed a Scottish Parliament petition calling for a new inquiry into the 1988 atrocity, which claimed 270 lives when a Pan Am passenger jet was blown up over Scotland.
Mr Swire said: “I spoke to him before he signed it and he was in favour of anything that might lead to a further inspection of the conviction of his dad. I also understand from my visit that the money set aside by Colonel Gaddafi for fighting his corner has pretty much gone. His advice to us has been to hold your horses until poor old Baset has gone.”
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, explained Megrahi’s appeal was now “dead” and a fresh application would have to be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
“There are two tests for granting an appeal,” he said. “One, has there been a miscarriage of justice and the SCCRC has already decided that there may have been.
And two, is it in the interests of justice?
“It would be easier for the convicted man’s family to establish that an appeal is in the interests of justice than for anybody else, such as a victim’s relative like Jim Swire.” (...)
In a rare interview before Megrahi’s release, after Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill judged he had less than three months to live, both Ghada and Khaled spoke of their anger.
Khaled, who recently completed a four year IT degree at a Glasgow university, said: “We have always tried to believe in the Scottish justice system and don’t want to be let down now. Everyone in Libya believes my father is innocent and I think many here do too.”
Ghada added: “I wanted to go into law because of what happened to my father and people like him who are wrongly accused.”
[Any attempt by Mr Megrahi's family to launch a fresh appeal via the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission would, of course, have to surmount the disgraceful new hurdles erected by the Scottish Parliament in section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Cadder emergency legislation).]
Two of the Lockerbie bomber’s children are set to launch an appeal against his conviction within days of his death, the Sunday Express understands.
Ghada and Khaled al-Megrahi are determined to clear their father’s name and have been working hard behind the scenes to prepare another legal challenge in the Scottish courts.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is believed to be close to death in a coma in a Libyan hospital, dropped his second appeal shortly before his compassionate release in August 2009.
Ghada, 27, who is a qualified lawyer in Tripoli, and Khaled, 24, now plan to use the evidence gathered by his legal team, much of which has never been in the public domain before.
Legal experts said there is a much greater likelihood of an appeal being granted after death if the request comes from a member of the convicted person’s immediate family.
Both siblings, the eldest of Megrahi’s five children, spent many years in Scotland and are understood to be confident about tackling the intricacies of the legal system.
Families campaigner Jim Swire, who met the entire family when he flew to Tripoli to visit Megrahi recently, said they were determined to ensure that the “fight goes on” after his death.
“Between the two of them they know what they are going to do,” he added.
Khaled has also signed a Scottish Parliament petition calling for a new inquiry into the 1988 atrocity, which claimed 270 lives when a Pan Am passenger jet was blown up over Scotland.
Mr Swire said: “I spoke to him before he signed it and he was in favour of anything that might lead to a further inspection of the conviction of his dad. I also understand from my visit that the money set aside by Colonel Gaddafi for fighting his corner has pretty much gone. His advice to us has been to hold your horses until poor old Baset has gone.”
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, explained Megrahi’s appeal was now “dead” and a fresh application would have to be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
“There are two tests for granting an appeal,” he said. “One, has there been a miscarriage of justice and the SCCRC has already decided that there may have been.
And two, is it in the interests of justice?
“It would be easier for the convicted man’s family to establish that an appeal is in the interests of justice than for anybody else, such as a victim’s relative like Jim Swire.” (...)
In a rare interview before Megrahi’s release, after Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill judged he had less than three months to live, both Ghada and Khaled spoke of their anger.
Khaled, who recently completed a four year IT degree at a Glasgow university, said: “We have always tried to believe in the Scottish justice system and don’t want to be let down now. Everyone in Libya believes my father is innocent and I think many here do too.”
Ghada added: “I wanted to go into law because of what happened to my father and people like him who are wrongly accused.”
[Any attempt by Mr Megrahi's family to launch a fresh appeal via the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission would, of course, have to surmount the disgraceful new hurdles erected by the Scottish Parliament in section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Cadder emergency legislation).]
Saturday, 18 December 2010
Gaddafi's threats or treats
[This is the headline over an article by John Fund on the website of The Wall Street Journal. It reads as follows:]
Despite its unsavory and reckless practices, WikiLeaks is clearing up some international mysteries—among them last year's release of the Lockerbie bomber by Scottish authorities.
At the time, Sean Connery, the actor and longtime Scottish nationalist, said that "I doubt we will ever know the full story" of why the Libyan agent who helped blow a Pan Am airliner out of the sky in 1988 was freed. Well, we now know a lot more. US diplomatic cables show that Britain was threatened and bullied into releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi. He was finally sent home based on flimsy medical predictions that he had three months to live and should be allowed to die at home with his family. That was 16 months ago and Megrahi is still very much alive.
A cable by US diplomat Richard LeBaron reveals that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made "thuggish" threats to kill all trade deals with Britain and harass its embassy staff in Tripoli if no release was forthcoming. In 2008, Mr. LeBaron wrote to Washington that "The Libyans have told [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."
Although the Libyans combined their threats with an offer of "treats" for Scottish authorities in exchange for Megrahi's release, the US cables indicate that the Scots turned the offer down. British ministers weren't so honorable. When they faced international outrage over the release, they tried to deflect blame for it onto the Scots. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hid behind the fact that Scotland has control of its own criminal justice system and said that his government "could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
But the cables reveal that it was British ministers who nudged Alex Salmond, the Scottish Nationalist minister, to take the political heat for releasing Megrahi. US diplomats were told by Jack Straw, who was British Justice Secretary at the time, that Megrahi might live another five years after any release, but the decision was still made to let him go.
While it's true that Britain kept its trade deals with Libya, the episode is now revealed to be another example of a democracy knuckling under to a dictator's threats. The latest revelations only embolden other dictators to use the same tactics in the future.
Despite its unsavory and reckless practices, WikiLeaks is clearing up some international mysteries—among them last year's release of the Lockerbie bomber by Scottish authorities.
At the time, Sean Connery, the actor and longtime Scottish nationalist, said that "I doubt we will ever know the full story" of why the Libyan agent who helped blow a Pan Am airliner out of the sky in 1988 was freed. Well, we now know a lot more. US diplomatic cables show that Britain was threatened and bullied into releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi. He was finally sent home based on flimsy medical predictions that he had three months to live and should be allowed to die at home with his family. That was 16 months ago and Megrahi is still very much alive.
A cable by US diplomat Richard LeBaron reveals that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made "thuggish" threats to kill all trade deals with Britain and harass its embassy staff in Tripoli if no release was forthcoming. In 2008, Mr. LeBaron wrote to Washington that "The Libyans have told [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."
Although the Libyans combined their threats with an offer of "treats" for Scottish authorities in exchange for Megrahi's release, the US cables indicate that the Scots turned the offer down. British ministers weren't so honorable. When they faced international outrage over the release, they tried to deflect blame for it onto the Scots. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hid behind the fact that Scotland has control of its own criminal justice system and said that his government "could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
But the cables reveal that it was British ministers who nudged Alex Salmond, the Scottish Nationalist minister, to take the political heat for releasing Megrahi. US diplomats were told by Jack Straw, who was British Justice Secretary at the time, that Megrahi might live another five years after any release, but the decision was still made to let him go.
While it's true that Britain kept its trade deals with Libya, the episode is now revealed to be another example of a democracy knuckling under to a dictator's threats. The latest revelations only embolden other dictators to use the same tactics in the future.
Friday, 17 December 2010
Compassionate release not appropriate for mass murderers
[This is the view expressed in an opinion piece by Hugh McLachlan, Professor of Law and Social Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, in today's edition of The Scotsman. It can be read -- but only by subscribers to the newspaper's premium content -- here. The following are excerpts.]
The information publicised recently by WikiLeaks regarding the release from prison of Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi suggests that, all along, the Scottish Government has been telling the truth. He was not released for reasons of commercial expediency. He was released on the grounds of compassion in accordance with what were considered to be the principles and practices of Scots Law.
However, to say that in terms of the prevailing relevant rules, the decision of Kenny MacAskill, the Minister of Justice, was impeccable is not to defend the rules. (...)
... I do not find it understandable and excusable that someone who is assumed to be guilty of murdering two hundred and seventy people should be released from prison because he is terminally ill. This is a shocking injustice. The rules and procedures that lead to this outcome would appear to be wrong. At the very least, they require an elaboration and a justification.
If you murder two hundred and seventy people no punishment will be enough. You will not live long enough to serve an adequately long prison sentence no matter how long you live. That, at some stage, you have only a few months to live would not be a justification for ending that punishment. Compassion would be an appropriate motive for giving you medical treatment if you became ill but not for setting you free.
If Mr al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted, he did not deserve to be in prison. He should have been released -- but not on the grounds of compassion. He should have been released on the grounds of justice.
If, as Mr MacAskill's decision assumes, he is guilty of killing two hundred and seventy people, he deserves to be in jail whether he is terminally ill or not. His terminal illness is irrelevant to the justice of his punishment. To give him medical treatment is an appropriate compassionate response.
To release him from prison out of compassion is inappropriate. It is unethical.
[It surprises me somewhat to find a professor of law (even when combined with social sciences) ascribing the provision of medical treatment to ill prisoners to an exercise of compassion. I should have thought it was a matter of legal duty.
I am grateful to Professor McLachlan for informing me that The Scotsman misdescribed him. He is in fact Professor of Applied Philosophy in the School of Law and Social Sciences.]
The information publicised recently by WikiLeaks regarding the release from prison of Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi suggests that, all along, the Scottish Government has been telling the truth. He was not released for reasons of commercial expediency. He was released on the grounds of compassion in accordance with what were considered to be the principles and practices of Scots Law.
However, to say that in terms of the prevailing relevant rules, the decision of Kenny MacAskill, the Minister of Justice, was impeccable is not to defend the rules. (...)
... I do not find it understandable and excusable that someone who is assumed to be guilty of murdering two hundred and seventy people should be released from prison because he is terminally ill. This is a shocking injustice. The rules and procedures that lead to this outcome would appear to be wrong. At the very least, they require an elaboration and a justification.
If you murder two hundred and seventy people no punishment will be enough. You will not live long enough to serve an adequately long prison sentence no matter how long you live. That, at some stage, you have only a few months to live would not be a justification for ending that punishment. Compassion would be an appropriate motive for giving you medical treatment if you became ill but not for setting you free.
If Mr al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted, he did not deserve to be in prison. He should have been released -- but not on the grounds of compassion. He should have been released on the grounds of justice.
If, as Mr MacAskill's decision assumes, he is guilty of killing two hundred and seventy people, he deserves to be in jail whether he is terminally ill or not. His terminal illness is irrelevant to the justice of his punishment. To give him medical treatment is an appropriate compassionate response.
To release him from prison out of compassion is inappropriate. It is unethical.
[It surprises me somewhat to find a professor of law (even when combined with social sciences) ascribing the provision of medical treatment to ill prisoners to an exercise of compassion. I should have thought it was a matter of legal duty.
I am grateful to Professor McLachlan for informing me that The Scotsman misdescribed him. He is in fact Professor of Applied Philosophy in the School of Law and Social Sciences.]
Gaddafi Foundation trustees concerned over Megrahi release role
[What follows is from a report in today's edition of the Financial Times.]
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s charity and the vehicle he has used to raise his political profile has announced an abrupt end to its advocacy of human rights and political reform, in what could represent a big setback for the son and heir apparent of the Libyan leader. (...)
In a statement late on Wednesday, the Gaddafi foundation announced it would focus on the less controversial work of delivering aid and relief to disadvantaged people primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Saif’s role as chairman, moreover, would become honorary, with the board of trustees acting as the supreme governing authority. (...)
The Gaddafi foundation statement said the board of trustees had voiced concern that the charity’s lobbying for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, from a Scottish jail, and the delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip, had “taken on political overtones” and left the organisation open to criticism from “supporters of Israel”.
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s charity and the vehicle he has used to raise his political profile has announced an abrupt end to its advocacy of human rights and political reform, in what could represent a big setback for the son and heir apparent of the Libyan leader. (...)
In a statement late on Wednesday, the Gaddafi foundation announced it would focus on the less controversial work of delivering aid and relief to disadvantaged people primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Saif’s role as chairman, moreover, would become honorary, with the board of trustees acting as the supreme governing authority. (...)
The Gaddafi foundation statement said the board of trustees had voiced concern that the charity’s lobbying for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, from a Scottish jail, and the delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip, had “taken on political overtones” and left the organisation open to criticism from “supporters of Israel”.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Gauci on al-Megrahi: Part II
The second part of Caustic Logic's video on Tony Gauci's "identification" of Abdelbaset Megrahi at the Zeist trial can be viewed here on The Lockerbie Divide blog.
Monday, 13 December 2010
Video: Gauci on al-Megrahi
This is the heading over a post on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. It is subtitled "A little bit like exactly" like a non-identification. The post consists of the first part of a two-part video setting out the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci that the Zeist court regarded as justifying the conclusion that Abdelbaset Megrahi was the purchaser of the items that surrounded the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103. The perverseness of this conclusion was one of the reasons founded on by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in deciding that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Scottish Parliament motion regarding SCCRC disclosure
[What follows is the text of a motion just tabled in the Scottish Parliament by the SNP's Christine Grahame MSP.]
*S3M-7586 Christine Grahame: SCCRC, the Megrahi Conviction and SSI 2009/448 Article 2(b)—That the Parliament considers but is not surprised that, in terms of article 2(b) of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force in February 2010, third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them, that parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked and therefore urges the Scottish Government to either repeal or amend SSI 2009/448 to remove article 2(b) in the interests of openness, accountability and justice.
[Ms Grahame has also submitted a written question in the following terms:]
S3W-38294 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce a further statutory instrument amending the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009 to delete Article 2(b).
Due for answer Tuesday, January 18, 2011
*S3M-7586 Christine Grahame: SCCRC, the Megrahi Conviction and SSI 2009/448 Article 2(b)—That the Parliament considers but is not surprised that, in terms of article 2(b) of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force in February 2010, third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them, that parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked and therefore urges the Scottish Government to either repeal or amend SSI 2009/448 to remove article 2(b) in the interests of openness, accountability and justice.
[Ms Grahame has also submitted a written question in the following terms:]
S3W-38294 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce a further statutory instrument amending the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009 to delete Article 2(b).
Due for answer Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Plan for Blair to block hero’s burial for Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It can be accessed -- but only by those who have subscribed -- here. The report reads in part:]
The Foreign Office fears that Gadaffi intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark Megrahi’s imminent death from prostate cancer
Gordon Brown's government planned to use Tony Blair as a “lever of influence” to persuade Libya not to give the Lockerbie bomber a hero’s funeral, leaked documents reveal.
The Foreign Office fears that Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, who has declared Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi innocent of Britain’s worst terrorist attack, intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark his imminent death from prostate cancer.
Sources close to Megrahi’s family have claimed he is now in a coma and expected to die within days — although Scottish officials insist that he had been well enough to contact them recently.
David Cameron’s administration has warned the Libyans that a state funeral for the man given compassionate release from a Scottish prison last year would be deeply offensive to relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up above Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. (...)
Last week, a secret US government cable, published by WikiLeaks, described how the Foreign Office regarded Brown’s predecessor as its best hope to persuade Gadaffi not to hold a state funeral for Megrahi. The memo, dated February 25, reported that Philippa Saunders, the incoming Foreign Office director for north Africa, had told US diplomats that Britain regarded Libya’s plans for Megrahi’s funeral as “a major concern and one that HMG [Her Majesty’s government] continues to raise regularly”. It said the British embassy was “engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK levers of influence with Tripoli”, although it warned, “unfortunately, there aren’t too many”.
Saunders, the cable said, singled out Blair as someone who night be able to intervene. It added: “The effort partially originated from the assumption there will be maybe a 48-hour window if we’re lucky between Megrahi’s eventual death and a funeral and the [Foreign Office] wants to ensure HMG is in a position to act quickly.”
Blair helped rehabilitate Gadaffi’s regime in the eyes of the West, and secured oil and defence deals for British firms during talks with the Libyan leader in 2007 that were designed to pave the way for Megrahi’s release. Earlier this year the dictator’s son claimed that Blair had become an adviser to his father, securing a consultancy role with a state fund that manages Libya’s £65 billion oil wealth, although Blair’s office has denied this. In an interview, Saif Gadaffi described Blair as a “personal family friend” who had visited Libya “many, many times” since leaving Downing Street.
Last year Brown said he had been “angry” and “repulsed” by the triumphalist scenes in Tripoli when Megrahi was given a hero’s welcome after being freed. Brown said he had written to Gadaffi asking him to ensure that Megrahi was given a low-key reception. President Barack Obama and US relatives of the victims of the bomb also condemned the scenes.
In August it emerged that Cameron’s government had warned Libya that any celebration of the first anniversary of Megrahi’s release would be an affront to the victims’ families.
Foreign Office sources confirmed that British officials in Tripoli had urged Libya to show restraint with Megrahi’s funeral. A senior Foreign Office source said: “Given the events surrounding his return last year, our position would be that any repeat along those lines would be very insensitive.” (...)
The Foreign Office fears that Gadaffi intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark Megrahi’s imminent death from prostate cancer
Gordon Brown's government planned to use Tony Blair as a “lever of influence” to persuade Libya not to give the Lockerbie bomber a hero’s funeral, leaked documents reveal.
The Foreign Office fears that Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, who has declared Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi innocent of Britain’s worst terrorist attack, intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark his imminent death from prostate cancer.
Sources close to Megrahi’s family have claimed he is now in a coma and expected to die within days — although Scottish officials insist that he had been well enough to contact them recently.
David Cameron’s administration has warned the Libyans that a state funeral for the man given compassionate release from a Scottish prison last year would be deeply offensive to relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up above Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. (...)
Last week, a secret US government cable, published by WikiLeaks, described how the Foreign Office regarded Brown’s predecessor as its best hope to persuade Gadaffi not to hold a state funeral for Megrahi. The memo, dated February 25, reported that Philippa Saunders, the incoming Foreign Office director for north Africa, had told US diplomats that Britain regarded Libya’s plans for Megrahi’s funeral as “a major concern and one that HMG [Her Majesty’s government] continues to raise regularly”. It said the British embassy was “engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK levers of influence with Tripoli”, although it warned, “unfortunately, there aren’t too many”.
Saunders, the cable said, singled out Blair as someone who night be able to intervene. It added: “The effort partially originated from the assumption there will be maybe a 48-hour window if we’re lucky between Megrahi’s eventual death and a funeral and the [Foreign Office] wants to ensure HMG is in a position to act quickly.”
Blair helped rehabilitate Gadaffi’s regime in the eyes of the West, and secured oil and defence deals for British firms during talks with the Libyan leader in 2007 that were designed to pave the way for Megrahi’s release. Earlier this year the dictator’s son claimed that Blair had become an adviser to his father, securing a consultancy role with a state fund that manages Libya’s £65 billion oil wealth, although Blair’s office has denied this. In an interview, Saif Gadaffi described Blair as a “personal family friend” who had visited Libya “many, many times” since leaving Downing Street.
Last year Brown said he had been “angry” and “repulsed” by the triumphalist scenes in Tripoli when Megrahi was given a hero’s welcome after being freed. Brown said he had written to Gadaffi asking him to ensure that Megrahi was given a low-key reception. President Barack Obama and US relatives of the victims of the bomb also condemned the scenes.
In August it emerged that Cameron’s government had warned Libya that any celebration of the first anniversary of Megrahi’s release would be an affront to the victims’ families.
Foreign Office sources confirmed that British officials in Tripoli had urged Libya to show restraint with Megrahi’s funeral. A senior Foreign Office source said: “Given the events surrounding his return last year, our position would be that any repeat along those lines would be very insensitive.” (...)
Saturday, 11 December 2010
Official report into Lockerbie bombing blocked by authorities
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
The publication of an official, 800-page dossier detailing the Lockerbie bomber's grounds for appealing his conviction has been blocked by authorities.
The decision to keep the report secret has fuelled claims by families of victims of the terrorist attack that the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was rushed through to prevent his appeal, which was due to be heard in public, going ahead.
The blocking of the report follows revelations last week contained in leaked US diplomatic cables that Britain believed lucrative oil and finance deals with Libya would be scrapped if Megrahi died in jail.
The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that a call by [victims' relatives] for a public inquiry has been turned down by the [UK] Government.
In a letter, obtained by this paper, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, declared it would "not be in the public interest" to order such an inquiry.
Megrahi dramatically dropped his appeal last summer and was then told he would be released from prison on compassionate grounds. (...)
The report into his conviction conducted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which looks into alleged miscarriages of justice, will remain locked away after Megrahi, the police, and other authorities could not agree on its publication.
All parties involved have to give 'unqualified consent' for it to be made public. It is not clear which parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself – vetoed its publication.
The SCCRC investigation is the most comprehensive into the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed in mainland Britain in which 270 people were murdered when Pan Am flight 103 blew up over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland on Dec 21, 1988.
The main report runs to more than 800 pages with a further 13 volumes of appendices.
Victims' families believe Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds only once he agreed to drop his appeal.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora was killed, said: "It appears the way had been prepared to enable Megrahi's release to take place before his appeal could be heard in full.
"The appeal could have overturned the verdict which would have been very embarrassing for authorities.
"There is a great deal the SCCRC knows which is not now being made available."
The SCCRC recommended in June 2007 that Megrahi should be granted a second appeal hearing following a four-year investigation into the case against him.
It identified six grounds "where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred" and referred the case to the court of appeal in Scotland. It includes evidence not made available to Megrahi's defence and which is still to be made public.
In a press release headed The Scottish Criminal Cases review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order, the SCCRC announced last week that it had not been able to obtain the consent of all the parties involved, including Megrahi, the Foreign Office and the police, to allow it to publish its report.
Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC's chief executive, said: "It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required ... and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time."
The Scottish Government said in a statement it would now look at altering legislation to try to "overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions".
But the crown office, the Scottish equivalent of the crown prosecution Service, said the SCCRC had spurned an invitation to help to obtain the necessary consent to enable the report to be published – a claim that has baffled the SCCRC but will further fuel speculation of a cover-up.
The intense frustration felt by victims over the dropping of the appeal is exacerbated by the Coalition's decision not to hold an independent inquiry. Families had repeatedly requested an inquiry during the Labour governments of the past 13 years but had hoped a change of Government might have also prompted a change of heart.
But in a letter to families, Mr Hague, said: "We have looked carefully into this issue, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the case. However, having reviewed this in detail the Government believes a public inquiry would not be in the public interest."
The publication of an official, 800-page dossier detailing the Lockerbie bomber's grounds for appealing his conviction has been blocked by authorities.
The decision to keep the report secret has fuelled claims by families of victims of the terrorist attack that the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was rushed through to prevent his appeal, which was due to be heard in public, going ahead.
The blocking of the report follows revelations last week contained in leaked US diplomatic cables that Britain believed lucrative oil and finance deals with Libya would be scrapped if Megrahi died in jail.
The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that a call by [victims' relatives] for a public inquiry has been turned down by the [UK] Government.
In a letter, obtained by this paper, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, declared it would "not be in the public interest" to order such an inquiry.
Megrahi dramatically dropped his appeal last summer and was then told he would be released from prison on compassionate grounds. (...)
The report into his conviction conducted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which looks into alleged miscarriages of justice, will remain locked away after Megrahi, the police, and other authorities could not agree on its publication.
All parties involved have to give 'unqualified consent' for it to be made public. It is not clear which parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself – vetoed its publication.
The SCCRC investigation is the most comprehensive into the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed in mainland Britain in which 270 people were murdered when Pan Am flight 103 blew up over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland on Dec 21, 1988.
The main report runs to more than 800 pages with a further 13 volumes of appendices.
Victims' families believe Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds only once he agreed to drop his appeal.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora was killed, said: "It appears the way had been prepared to enable Megrahi's release to take place before his appeal could be heard in full.
"The appeal could have overturned the verdict which would have been very embarrassing for authorities.
"There is a great deal the SCCRC knows which is not now being made available."
The SCCRC recommended in June 2007 that Megrahi should be granted a second appeal hearing following a four-year investigation into the case against him.
It identified six grounds "where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred" and referred the case to the court of appeal in Scotland. It includes evidence not made available to Megrahi's defence and which is still to be made public.
In a press release headed The Scottish Criminal Cases review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order, the SCCRC announced last week that it had not been able to obtain the consent of all the parties involved, including Megrahi, the Foreign Office and the police, to allow it to publish its report.
Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC's chief executive, said: "It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required ... and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time."
The Scottish Government said in a statement it would now look at altering legislation to try to "overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions".
But the crown office, the Scottish equivalent of the crown prosecution Service, said the SCCRC had spurned an invitation to help to obtain the necessary consent to enable the report to be published – a claim that has baffled the SCCRC but will further fuel speculation of a cover-up.
The intense frustration felt by victims over the dropping of the appeal is exacerbated by the Coalition's decision not to hold an independent inquiry. Families had repeatedly requested an inquiry during the Labour governments of the past 13 years but had hoped a change of Government might have also prompted a change of heart.
But in a letter to families, Mr Hague, said: "We have looked carefully into this issue, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the case. However, having reviewed this in detail the Government believes a public inquiry would not be in the public interest."
It is imperative for the survivors of Lockerbie that we continue to search for the truth
[This is the heading over a letter from Ruth Marr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Professor James Mitchell is correct to praise the Scottish Government for refusing to be bullied and by taking the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but he is perhaps understandably pessimistic regarding getting answers to the questions which, almost 22 years later, continue to haunt the Lockerbie tragedy (“WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release”, The Herald, December 10).
However, it is absolutely imperative for the sake of the families of the victims, for the town of Lockerbie, for all who care about the Scottish justice system and, indeed, for Megrahi, that we probe to get the relevant answers, because until we do, all those whose lives were changed for ever by that horrific crime cannot hope to try to move on.
Father Pat Keegans, who narrowly escaped death at Lockerbie, has concisely and poignantly summed up the situation when he said: “We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.” It is for those reasons that a full, independent public inquiry must be held to determine all the facts, and answer the many troubling questions surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the conviction of Megrahi for the crime.
All those lost at Lockerbie, and those they left behind, deserve nothing less than truth and justice, and we must not fail them now.
[A further letter in the same newspaper from John Scott Roy reads as follows:]
What a refreshing article by Professor James Mitchell in which he summarises many of the reasons for people to distrust politicians as a group. Their cynical behaviour is well exposed by the examples he provides.
The SNP Government is praised, to some extent. It has not been in power long enough for the infection to have taken full root.
Professor James Mitchell is correct to praise the Scottish Government for refusing to be bullied and by taking the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but he is perhaps understandably pessimistic regarding getting answers to the questions which, almost 22 years later, continue to haunt the Lockerbie tragedy (“WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release”, The Herald, December 10).
However, it is absolutely imperative for the sake of the families of the victims, for the town of Lockerbie, for all who care about the Scottish justice system and, indeed, for Megrahi, that we probe to get the relevant answers, because until we do, all those whose lives were changed for ever by that horrific crime cannot hope to try to move on.
Father Pat Keegans, who narrowly escaped death at Lockerbie, has concisely and poignantly summed up the situation when he said: “We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.” It is for those reasons that a full, independent public inquiry must be held to determine all the facts, and answer the many troubling questions surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the conviction of Megrahi for the crime.
All those lost at Lockerbie, and those they left behind, deserve nothing less than truth and justice, and we must not fail them now.
[A further letter in the same newspaper from John Scott Roy reads as follows:]
What a refreshing article by Professor James Mitchell in which he summarises many of the reasons for people to distrust politicians as a group. Their cynical behaviour is well exposed by the examples he provides.
The SNP Government is praised, to some extent. It has not been in power long enough for the infection to have taken full root.
Lockerbie: The scandal of the decade?
[This is the headline over an article by former G W Bush speechwriter David Frum in The Week magazine. It reads in part:]
The WikiLeaks cables offer more evidence the British government was complicit in the release of the Pan Am bomber
The defeated British Labour government has now been thoroughly caught in its lies about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. (...)
The official story was that the decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was made in Scotland and had nothing to do with London. Indeed, the story went, the Labour government in Westminster could not possibly have been more distressed by the release, after just eight years in prison, of a convicted mass murder.
Turns out, of course, that's not the real story. (...)
The al-Megrahi story could be the scandal of the decade. Of the 259 people murdered over Lockerbie, 190 were American citizens. It took a decade of hard diplomatic work to bring the man directly responsible for those deaths to justice. If the cables are correct, the Al-Megrahi release was not some aberration of the local Scottish government, with which London had nothing to do. Instead, our British ally was subjected to intense commercial pressure to release Al-Megrahi, apparently acquiesced, and then stone-facedly denied itsr own role. Nothing to do with them, utterly beyond their control, terribly sorry old boy.
Here's how the UK government characterized the release at the time, again as reported by The Guardian. "Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports that the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are "wholly untrue." He denied a "back door deal" was done to transfer Megrahi because of UK trade talks with the Libyan government." Even at the time, that story looked dodgy. Here's the next sentence from the same news account: "Letters leaked to a newspaper show Mr. Straw agreed not to exclude [Megrahi] from a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of 'overwhelming national interests'." By the way, six weeks after Straw changed his mind about the handling of Megrahi's case in 2007, BP gained a huge oil deal in Libya.
WikiLeaks does not add any new proof to the case that the British ministers misled the world about the Megrahi release. What the leaks do show is that neither the US government nor the British government itself ever believed the misrepresentations. So that's some comfort: a mass murderer may have gone free, but at least nobody in authority duped themselves over what had happened. Just the voters. Actually on second thought, the voters were not duped either. We all knew, and now the truth of what leaders knew has been exposed for all to see.
[Apart from the typical US purblindness with respect to the shakiness of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction, this is a pretty accurate encapsulation of the UK government's attitude and role in relation to his repatriation.]
The WikiLeaks cables offer more evidence the British government was complicit in the release of the Pan Am bomber
The defeated British Labour government has now been thoroughly caught in its lies about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. (...)
The official story was that the decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was made in Scotland and had nothing to do with London. Indeed, the story went, the Labour government in Westminster could not possibly have been more distressed by the release, after just eight years in prison, of a convicted mass murder.
Turns out, of course, that's not the real story. (...)
The al-Megrahi story could be the scandal of the decade. Of the 259 people murdered over Lockerbie, 190 were American citizens. It took a decade of hard diplomatic work to bring the man directly responsible for those deaths to justice. If the cables are correct, the Al-Megrahi release was not some aberration of the local Scottish government, with which London had nothing to do. Instead, our British ally was subjected to intense commercial pressure to release Al-Megrahi, apparently acquiesced, and then stone-facedly denied itsr own role. Nothing to do with them, utterly beyond their control, terribly sorry old boy.
Here's how the UK government characterized the release at the time, again as reported by The Guardian. "Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports that the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are "wholly untrue." He denied a "back door deal" was done to transfer Megrahi because of UK trade talks with the Libyan government." Even at the time, that story looked dodgy. Here's the next sentence from the same news account: "Letters leaked to a newspaper show Mr. Straw agreed not to exclude [Megrahi] from a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of 'overwhelming national interests'." By the way, six weeks after Straw changed his mind about the handling of Megrahi's case in 2007, BP gained a huge oil deal in Libya.
WikiLeaks does not add any new proof to the case that the British ministers misled the world about the Megrahi release. What the leaks do show is that neither the US government nor the British government itself ever believed the misrepresentations. So that's some comfort: a mass murderer may have gone free, but at least nobody in authority duped themselves over what had happened. Just the voters. Actually on second thought, the voters were not duped either. We all knew, and now the truth of what leaders knew has been exposed for all to see.
[Apart from the typical US purblindness with respect to the shakiness of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction, this is a pretty accurate encapsulation of the UK government's attitude and role in relation to his repatriation.]
Friday, 10 December 2010
WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an opinion piece in today's edition of The Herald by Professor James Mitchell, head of the School of Government and Public Policy, Strathclyde University. It reads in part:]
We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.
But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.
The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.
It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.
While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.
Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda. (...)
UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.
Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.
He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.
We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.
But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.
The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.
It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.
While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.
Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda. (...)
UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.
Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.
He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
SCCRC fails to get consents necessary for disclosure
[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009.
The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.
Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said:
“As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
"Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.
"It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.
"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
[As Mr Sinclair correctly indicates in the last sentence of his statement, the condition in the 2009 Order that the consent of suppliers of information had to be obtained is one which the Scottish Government in making the Order was under no legal obligation to impose. It CHOSE to do so -- one wonders why. Pressure should now be applied on the Scottish Government to vary the Order by removing this superfluous requirement.
The relevant portions of the primary legislation [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended] under which the 2009 Order was made read as follows:]
194K Exceptions from obligation of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information ... is excepted from section 194J [Offence of disclosure] of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed ... --
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) ... above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
[The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just posted a report on this matter on its website.
The Scottish Government has issued the following statement:]
The Scottish Government welcomes the efforts made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case and has accepted that release has not been possible within the constraints of the current legislation. The Scottish Government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible, and so is now considering primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected by the statement of reasons.
[As I have stated above, primary legislation is not necessary. All that is required is a further Statutory Instrument amending the 2009 Order. Is the Scottish Government resorting to delaying tactics in proposing primary legislation? Perish the thought!]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009.
The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.
Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said:
“As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
"Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.
"It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.
"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
[As Mr Sinclair correctly indicates in the last sentence of his statement, the condition in the 2009 Order that the consent of suppliers of information had to be obtained is one which the Scottish Government in making the Order was under no legal obligation to impose. It CHOSE to do so -- one wonders why. Pressure should now be applied on the Scottish Government to vary the Order by removing this superfluous requirement.
The relevant portions of the primary legislation [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended] under which the 2009 Order was made read as follows:]
194K Exceptions from obligation of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information ... is excepted from section 194J [Offence of disclosure] of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed ... --
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) ... above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
[The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just posted a report on this matter on its website.
The Scottish Government has issued the following statement:]
The Scottish Government welcomes the efforts made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case and has accepted that release has not been possible within the constraints of the current legislation. The Scottish Government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible, and so is now considering primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected by the statement of reasons.
[As I have stated above, primary legislation is not necessary. All that is required is a further Statutory Instrument amending the 2009 Order. Is the Scottish Government resorting to delaying tactics in proposing primary legislation? Perish the thought!]
Families: Megrahi's release a business deal
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
The families of US Lockerbie victims say revelations on whistleblowing website WikiLeaks about Libyan inducements to secure Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release show it was a "business deal". (...)
Cables from US diplomatic staff contain claims that Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt trade deals with Britain if Megrahi died in jail - and that senior diplomats feared reprisals on British citizens.
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick died in the bombing, said: "It's exactly what we said all along. The UK and Scots totally caved in because they need Libyan oil.
"It has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with anything else except business - and business trumps."
Of the Scottish ministers, he added: "For whatever reason, whether they were pressured by Gaddafi or by the Brits, they clearly violated their own law by letting someone go on compassionate (grounds] who had at least two years to live, when compassionate release is three months left."
Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter was also among the victims, said: "It's obvious what it was and there's no great surprises here.
"All it does is give us more proof, and we've already had a lot, that that's what it was - a business deal.
"You should be ashamed in Scotland because nothing else mattered, nothing about your legal system."
But ministers insist the decision was based purely on the Scots justice system.
Mr Salmond said the cables "vindicated" their position and everything they had said publicly and privately at the time.
"We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did," he said. (...)
But Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said the leaks indicate that Mr Salmond was behind the decision.
"It looks as though the Scottish Government was at least thought by the US ambassador in London to be considering compassionate release at an early stage," he said.
Dr Swire, who visited Megrahi around this time and believes he is innocent, said he was not ill enough at this stage for compassionate release to be a possibility. I think its very interesting that a letter from that date should be suggesting compassionate release that early."
WikiLeaks have also "firmed up" suspicions that the ultimate decision to release Megrahi was not taken by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, according to Dr Swire.
He said: "It's pretty clear that he was operating under the advice of Salmond." (...) [RB: The cable in which the US ambassador says (on the basis of what he was told by a FCO civil servant reporting what Jack Straw said he was told by Alex Salmond -- hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay) is dated 24 October 2008, just shortly after Megrahi's diagnosis and more than six months before any application was made for prisoner transfer and eight months before an application was made for compassionate release. The cable provides no evidence at all that when eventually decisions had to be made more than six months later, and after Scottish Government lawyers had had a chance to give advice on law and procedure, anyone other than the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took those decisions.]
According to the leaked diplomatic documents, Mr Salmond told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August this year that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not . . . He said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish Government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
The leaks claim to show the UK Government feared harsh action by Libya against British interests if Megrahi died in prison.
Former UK justice secretary Jack Straw also said the revelations had no connection to the final decision.
"Both Alex Salmond and the British government have said until they're blue in the face what is true - that this was a decision which was made by the Scottish Government, and by nobody else, " Mr Straw said.
[A somewhat similar article appears in today's edition of the Daily Mail. The Times concentrates on the supposed involvement of Alex Salmond in the decision. The Daily Telegraph runs an odd story about a proposed Swiss deal to have Megrahi transferred from Greenock Prison to a prison in Switzerland.
The Sun has a report to the effect that Megrahi is on life support, is unable to communicate and is near death. The BBC Scotland Good Morning Scotland programme reported today that a family member had confirmed this to their correspondent in Tripoli.]
The families of US Lockerbie victims say revelations on whistleblowing website WikiLeaks about Libyan inducements to secure Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release show it was a "business deal". (...)
Cables from US diplomatic staff contain claims that Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt trade deals with Britain if Megrahi died in jail - and that senior diplomats feared reprisals on British citizens.
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick died in the bombing, said: "It's exactly what we said all along. The UK and Scots totally caved in because they need Libyan oil.
"It has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with anything else except business - and business trumps."
Of the Scottish ministers, he added: "For whatever reason, whether they were pressured by Gaddafi or by the Brits, they clearly violated their own law by letting someone go on compassionate (grounds] who had at least two years to live, when compassionate release is three months left."
Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter was also among the victims, said: "It's obvious what it was and there's no great surprises here.
"All it does is give us more proof, and we've already had a lot, that that's what it was - a business deal.
"You should be ashamed in Scotland because nothing else mattered, nothing about your legal system."
But ministers insist the decision was based purely on the Scots justice system.
Mr Salmond said the cables "vindicated" their position and everything they had said publicly and privately at the time.
"We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did," he said. (...)
But Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said the leaks indicate that Mr Salmond was behind the decision.
"It looks as though the Scottish Government was at least thought by the US ambassador in London to be considering compassionate release at an early stage," he said.
Dr Swire, who visited Megrahi around this time and believes he is innocent, said he was not ill enough at this stage for compassionate release to be a possibility. I think its very interesting that a letter from that date should be suggesting compassionate release that early."
WikiLeaks have also "firmed up" suspicions that the ultimate decision to release Megrahi was not taken by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, according to Dr Swire.
He said: "It's pretty clear that he was operating under the advice of Salmond." (...) [RB: The cable in which the US ambassador says (on the basis of what he was told by a FCO civil servant reporting what Jack Straw said he was told by Alex Salmond -- hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay) is dated 24 October 2008, just shortly after Megrahi's diagnosis and more than six months before any application was made for prisoner transfer and eight months before an application was made for compassionate release. The cable provides no evidence at all that when eventually decisions had to be made more than six months later, and after Scottish Government lawyers had had a chance to give advice on law and procedure, anyone other than the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took those decisions.]
According to the leaked diplomatic documents, Mr Salmond told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August this year that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not . . . He said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish Government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
The leaks claim to show the UK Government feared harsh action by Libya against British interests if Megrahi died in prison.
Former UK justice secretary Jack Straw also said the revelations had no connection to the final decision.
"Both Alex Salmond and the British government have said until they're blue in the face what is true - that this was a decision which was made by the Scottish Government, and by nobody else, " Mr Straw said.
[A somewhat similar article appears in today's edition of the Daily Mail. The Times concentrates on the supposed involvement of Alex Salmond in the decision. The Daily Telegraph runs an odd story about a proposed Swiss deal to have Megrahi transferred from Greenock Prison to a prison in Switzerland.
The Sun has a report to the effect that Megrahi is on life support, is unable to communicate and is near death. The BBC Scotland Good Morning Scotland programme reported today that a family member had confirmed this to their correspondent in Tripoli.]
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
The First Minister on the Megrahi cables
[The following are excerpts from a report recently published on The Guardian website. Although Alex Salmond's remarks were made on a BBC radio programme, this account is fuller than what appears on the BBC News website.]
The allegations were dismissed by the Scottish government as "diplomatic tittle tattle". Salmond said: "We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did." (...)
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, also report Salmond telling the US consul to Edinburgh that the Libyans had offered him "a parade of treats" if Megrahi was released early, "all of which were turned down". It was denied today that such offers were made.
Salmond told the BBC: "Frankly I don't believe anybody seriously believes that the Scottish government acted in anything other than the precepts of Scots justice. And incidentally this information – as opposed to what it suggests perhaps about other people – vindicates and bears out that position."
Asked whether it now seemed right to have released Megrahi – who was said to have only three months to live but is still alive 16 months later – Salmond said: "I'm sorry, that's not the law. The law of Scotland is that a reasonable estimate is provided by senior medical officers and then acted upon by ministers, under the advice of the parole board, the prison service and a range of other interests. That's what was done."
Of the Guardian's revelations, Salmond said: "At the time you'll remember the UK government gave the impression that they either had no opinion on the release of Mr Megrahi or had no other factors concerned. I would have thought that the most interesting thing about this information is it shows that the UK government at the time – that's the then Labour government – were extremely keen to have Mr Megrahi released. Now, I've said this all along."
He went on: "We were clearly the only ones playing with a straight bat and interested in applying the precepts of Scottish justice, which we continue to do and continue to uphold.
"The cables confirm what we always said – that our only interest was taking a justice decision based on Scots law without fear or favour, which was exactly what was done, and that our public position was identical to our private one.
"They also show that the former UK government were playing false on the issue, with a different public position from their private one – which must be deeply embarrassing for the Labour party in Scotland – and that the US government was fully aware of the pressure being applied to the UK government."
The allegations were dismissed by the Scottish government as "diplomatic tittle tattle". Salmond said: "We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did." (...)
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, also report Salmond telling the US consul to Edinburgh that the Libyans had offered him "a parade of treats" if Megrahi was released early, "all of which were turned down". It was denied today that such offers were made.
Salmond told the BBC: "Frankly I don't believe anybody seriously believes that the Scottish government acted in anything other than the precepts of Scots justice. And incidentally this information – as opposed to what it suggests perhaps about other people – vindicates and bears out that position."
Asked whether it now seemed right to have released Megrahi – who was said to have only three months to live but is still alive 16 months later – Salmond said: "I'm sorry, that's not the law. The law of Scotland is that a reasonable estimate is provided by senior medical officers and then acted upon by ministers, under the advice of the parole board, the prison service and a range of other interests. That's what was done."
Of the Guardian's revelations, Salmond said: "At the time you'll remember the UK government gave the impression that they either had no opinion on the release of Mr Megrahi or had no other factors concerned. I would have thought that the most interesting thing about this information is it shows that the UK government at the time – that's the then Labour government – were extremely keen to have Mr Megrahi released. Now, I've said this all along."
He went on: "We were clearly the only ones playing with a straight bat and interested in applying the precepts of Scottish justice, which we continue to do and continue to uphold.
"The cables confirm what we always said – that our only interest was taking a justice decision based on Scots law without fear or favour, which was exactly what was done, and that our public position was identical to our private one.
"They also show that the former UK government were playing false on the issue, with a different public position from their private one – which must be deeply embarrassing for the Labour party in Scotland – and that the US government was fully aware of the pressure being applied to the UK government."
Media reaction to WikiLeaks Megrahi cables
There are no surprises in the coverage by the UK and Scottish media of the US diplomatic cables. The vast bulk of the media loathe and detest the Scottish National Party and all its works and so are keen to focus on criticism by US diplomats (and, through them, by UK diplomats and politicians) of the SNP Scottish Government. The opportunities for this are, however, somewhat limited since the cables make it clear that the UK Government (as this blog has maintained) was determined that, by hook or by crook, Megrahi should be repatriated, while the Scottish Government resisted both behind-the-scenes pressure and blandishments and approached the issue on the basis of the relevant legal provisions (though, no doubt, political considerations entered in to the surprising decision to link the two quite separate issues that were before the Justice Secretary -- the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer and Abdelbaset Megrahi's request for compassionate release; it was this quite unnecessary linkage that compelled Megrahi to abandon his appeal if he wished BOTH of them to remain live options).
In the mainstream media, useful reports can be found on the BBC News website; in The Independent; in The Times -- for those who have subscribed; and in The Scotsman. The Newsnet Scotland website has a good analysis by Alex Porter and a further report headed Labour agreed to help US lobby Scottish Government over Megrahi; and James Kelly's SCOT goes POP blog has an interesting commentary, as does Alex Massie's blog on The Spectator website.
The reaction of the First Minister Alex Salmond to the media brouhaha over the cables is to be found on the BBC News website.
In the mainstream media, useful reports can be found on the BBC News website; in The Independent; in The Times -- for those who have subscribed; and in The Scotsman. The Newsnet Scotland website has a good analysis by Alex Porter and a further report headed Labour agreed to help US lobby Scottish Government over Megrahi; and James Kelly's SCOT goes POP blog has an interesting commentary, as does Alex Massie's blog on The Spectator website.
The reaction of the First Minister Alex Salmond to the media brouhaha over the cables is to be found on the BBC News website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)