[This is the headline over a long article by Alex Massie in his blog on the website of The Spectator. It reads in part:]
First things first: it is extremely inconvenient, even embarrassing, that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is still alive nearly a year after he was released from Greenock Prison on the grounds that he was believed to have not much more, and perhaps fewer, than three months to live. Nevertheless, the fact that he has lived longer than expected does not advance or give any greater credence to the notion that there was some conspiracy designed to free him come what may and regardless of any other considerations.
Nor is there any evidence, despite recent press reports, that BP (everyone's favourite whipping boy now) played any role in Kenny MacAskill's decision to send him back to Libya. One may reasonably think, as the British government does, that MacAskill's decision was a mistake but that does not mean that, as matters were understood at the time, the Justice Secretary was either wrong or acting on behalf of other interests.
I'd go further: the fact that Megrahi is still alive does not enhance conspiracy theories, it makes them even less probable than their previous improbability suggested. But, wait, there's an oil company "involved"! And it's BP! QED!
There are two seperate issues that, unfortunately, continue to be conflated by people who ought to know better. Unsurprisingly this company includes several members of the United States Senate whose grandstanding is equalled only by their ignorance. Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, Lautenberg and Menendez have written to Hillary Clinton demanding some kind of pointless investigation into "links" between BP and the decision to release Megrahi.
Unfortunately their request is predicated upon nonsense and, for that matter, riddled with errors. Among them:
1. No "Scottish court" ordered that Megrahi be released. It was a matter for the Justice Secretary and him alone.
2. The prognosis given by Karel Sikora and the other doctors paid by the Libyan government played no part in MacAskill's decision. He never saw Sikora's report. The decision was made on the basis of reports compiled by Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor in the Scottish Prison Service. These drew on the findings of at least two other independent consultants.
3. If BP really was lobbying the British government for Megrahi's "release" it was lobbying the wrong people since the British government did not have competence in this matter. Again, and evidently this still needs to be spelt out, London could no more approve Megrahi's release than could Timbuktu. (...)
John F Burns is a great journalist but the opening paragraph of his most recent New York Times report helps demonstrate why so many people remain so confused:
"The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans."
But a Prisoner Transfer Agreement says nothing about releasing prisoners. On the contrary it is, as the name suggests, an agreement about transferring inmates from prison in one jurisdiction to prison in another. That is, even the Libyans weren't lobbying for Megrahi's release. They merely wanted him to be eligible to be transferred to a Libyan gaol where he could serve the rest of his sentence.
So what do we have here? Let's review the matter one more time:
1. Libya and the UK wanted to sign a PTA as part of the normalisation of relations between the two countries.
2. Libya made it clear to BP that a PTA would help BP's commercial interests in the Gulf of Sidra.
3. BP also pointed out to HMG (Her Majesty's Government) that signing the PTA would be very useful.
4. The Scottish Government was keen to exclude Megrahi from the terms of any such agreement.
5. The Libyans told London that it would be absurd to have a PTA that excluded the only high-profile Libyan in British custody.
6. Despite Edinburgh's concerns, London came around to agreeing with the Libyans and so, when signed, the PTA contained no clause excluding Megrahi from its provisions.
7. Signing the PTA most probably did help BP's commercial interests in Libya. Then again, BP's initial deal with Libya was signed in 2007 - well before any of the Megrahi business came to a head and well before there could be any consideration of releasing him.
8. So what if BP did benefit? The existence of the PTA did nothing to improve Megrahi's chances of being released. (Here I would note that Edinburgh's desire for a Megrahi Exception made little sense since the decision on his future would, as it always had been, remain a matter for Edinburgh. London gave Tripoli something Tripoli wanted badly but London did not have to give up anything in return since, again, what Tripoli wanted was not in London's gift.)
9. Libya made an application to the Scottish Government asking that Megrahi be transferred to serve the remainder of his sentence in a Libyan prison.
10. The Scottish Government considered this application and then, based in part upon its understanding that assurances had been given to the United States that Megrahi would serve his entire sentence in Scotland, rejected Libya's application.
11. Again, signing a PTA with Libya - which London was keen to do - is an entirely seperate issue from the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
12. We are now in the odd position that those who think there was a conspiracy need Megrahi to live for years while those who think MacAskill made the decision honestly would be relieved if he died next week.
13. Not a single credible report has emerged disputing that MacAskill made his decision according to the medical facts as he saw and understood them at the time.
14. The fact that Megrahi has "outperformed" medical expectations says much more about medical science than it does about Kenny MacAskill.
15. If much of the press reporting is to be given credence we are asked to suppose that MacAskill would have released Megrahi come what may. This, of course, is because of BP and HMG and all the rest of it. But for this to be true we have to believe that if the doctors had said Megrahi's prostate cancer was not so serious and he'd live for another year at least MacAskill would have said, Well that doesn't matter I'm going to release him anyway and so what if this rides roughshod over both established practice and the law? I want to be a Big Boy playing on the big stage. I suggest that this is implausible.
16. For there to be a conspiracy we need to believe that two (three if you include Libya) jurisdictions were involved and that this included several government departments and the Scottish Prison Service and at least two independent consultants. And BP of course. Again, I suggest that this is not credible. For a conspiracy to have any credence you need to believe that Edinburgh was determined to release Megrahi at any or all costs. There is precisely zero evidence to support this notion.
None of this means there aren't perfectly good grounds upon which to oppose or criticise MacAskill's decision. Good people may disagree in good faith upon this question. But that's a long way from supposing that there was some conspiracy or that the medical evidence was fabricated or that BP was secretly running the entire show.
This blog's Lockerbie archive is here and, more or less, I stand by pretty much everything I wrote nearly a year ago. Megrahi's survival is inconvenient and, yes, embarrassing but that doesn't mean there was any conspiracy to release him. Nor does it in and of itself suggest that MacAskill was acting in anything other than good faith at any point in proceedings.
Yet, again, for there to have been a conspiracy you need to believe that if the doctors had told MacAskill that Megrahi would live for another year he'd have been released anyway. Never mind that, as I understand it, this would have been beyond his purview it makes no sense even if you want to believe in it.
You can certainly argue that convicted terrorists should never be released but that's an entirely different question. But cock-up - or rather the vagaries of medical prognosis - is a likelier explanation of all this than conspiracy not least because there is precisely no evidence of there being any conspiracy.
Showing posts sorted by date for query lautenberg. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query lautenberg. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Friday 16 July 2010
Thursday 15 July 2010
Sheinwald: mistake to free Lockerbie bomber
[What follows is an Agence France Presse news agency report:]
The government believes that the decision by Scotland to free the Lockerbie bomber was a mistake, London's envoy to the United States said Thursday.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of a US Pan Am jumbo jet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which left 270 people dead.
"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," ambassador Nigel Sheinwald said, stressing that under the country's laws power over justice issues have been devolved to Scotland.
Megrahi was released from jail in Scottish prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he was said to be suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. Reports have now emerged that he could live at least another 10 years.
On Tuesday, four US senators also called for an inquiry into allegations that energy giant BP lobbied the British government to free Megrahi in order to protect a lucrative oil deal with Libya.
[The ambassador to Washington DC, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, was Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the prime minister, Tony Blair, from 2003 to 2007. It is a matter for mild cynical amusement that Sheinwald was present at, and intimately involved in, the negotiation of the deal in the desert which was intended to pave the way for Abdelbaset Megrahi's early repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement. The UK negotiators did not realise that the power to allow transfer would rest, not with the UK but with the Scottish, Government. Or if the negotiators did realise this, they signally failed to inform their Libyan counterparts, to the disgust of the latter when they discovered what the true position was.
There is a related long report on the Channel 4 News website and another one on The Guardian website. This also contains a clarification of Professor Karol Sikora's views on Megrahi's survival prospects:]
New York Democrat senators Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and New Jersey Democrat Senator Robert Menendez called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert, who backed the three-month prognosis, now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.
But yesterday, Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, said his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were "less than 1%".
He said: "There was a greater than 50% chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less.
"So the chances of living 10 years is less than 1%, something like that."
The government believes that the decision by Scotland to free the Lockerbie bomber was a mistake, London's envoy to the United States said Thursday.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of a US Pan Am jumbo jet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which left 270 people dead.
"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," ambassador Nigel Sheinwald said, stressing that under the country's laws power over justice issues have been devolved to Scotland.
Megrahi was released from jail in Scottish prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he was said to be suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. Reports have now emerged that he could live at least another 10 years.
On Tuesday, four US senators also called for an inquiry into allegations that energy giant BP lobbied the British government to free Megrahi in order to protect a lucrative oil deal with Libya.
[The ambassador to Washington DC, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, was Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the prime minister, Tony Blair, from 2003 to 2007. It is a matter for mild cynical amusement that Sheinwald was present at, and intimately involved in, the negotiation of the deal in the desert which was intended to pave the way for Abdelbaset Megrahi's early repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement. The UK negotiators did not realise that the power to allow transfer would rest, not with the UK but with the Scottish, Government. Or if the negotiators did realise this, they signally failed to inform their Libyan counterparts, to the disgust of the latter when they discovered what the true position was.
There is a related long report on the Channel 4 News website and another one on The Guardian website. This also contains a clarification of Professor Karol Sikora's views on Megrahi's survival prospects:]
New York Democrat senators Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and New Jersey Democrat Senator Robert Menendez called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert, who backed the three-month prognosis, now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.
But yesterday, Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, said his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were "less than 1%".
He said: "There was a greater than 50% chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less.
"So the chances of living 10 years is less than 1%, something like that."
Wednesday 14 July 2010
Clinton to look into senators' request on BP, Libya
[This is the headline over a report on the website of the news agency Reuters. It reads in part:]
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday she would look into a request by US lawmakers that the State Department investigate whether oil company BP plc had a hand in the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.
According to media reports, London-based oil company BP lobbied the British government to support the prison transfer, which may have encouraged Libya to finalize an offshore drilling deal with BP. (...)
"I have received the letter and we will obviously look into it," Clinton said in response to a reporter's question, referring to a letter from Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer.
[This story also features in Thursday's edition of The Guardian, where Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is quoted as saying: "It is almost too disgusting to fathom that BP had a possible role in securing the release of the Lockerbie terrorist in return for an oil drilling deal."
The Herald also has a report in which Sen Schumer is quoted: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British Government and Libya.”
The Aljazeera news website also features a report.]
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday she would look into a request by US lawmakers that the State Department investigate whether oil company BP plc had a hand in the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.
According to media reports, London-based oil company BP lobbied the British government to support the prison transfer, which may have encouraged Libya to finalize an offshore drilling deal with BP. (...)
"I have received the letter and we will obviously look into it," Clinton said in response to a reporter's question, referring to a letter from Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer.
[This story also features in Thursday's edition of The Guardian, where Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is quoted as saying: "It is almost too disgusting to fathom that BP had a possible role in securing the release of the Lockerbie terrorist in return for an oil drilling deal."
The Herald also has a report in which Sen Schumer is quoted: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British Government and Libya.”
The Aljazeera news website also features a report.]
BP must halt Libya wells, say senators seeking Lockerbie probe
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Bloomberg Businessweek website. It reads in part:]
BP plc should stop a planned drilling campaign in Libya while links between the oil producer and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi are investigated, a group of US Senators said.
The London-based company has a rig in place to start a well in the Gulf of Sirte after completing a seismic survey last year. BP also plans to drill onshore in the Ghadames basin by the end of the year, Robert Wine, a spokesman for BP, said today.
BP, under political pressure to stop and clean up the worst oil spill in US history, signed an exploration agreement with Libya’s National Oil Corp in May 2007 during a visit by then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. US senators, who yesterday asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to examine whether BP helped secure al-Megrahi’s freedom from a Scottish jail to facilitate the deal, held a press conference today demanding BP stop drilling in Libya.
“Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people,” Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York wrote in the letter to Clinton yesterday. “The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?”
Menendez, Schumer and Lautenberg held a press conference in Washington this morning “to call for BP to suspend its oil drilling plans in Libya,” Mike Morey, a spokesman for Schumer, wrote in an e-mail.
Libya has proved oil reserves of 44.3 billion barrels, the most in Africa, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (...)
“Libya due to start in a matter of weeks,” Wine said today in an e-mail. “Rig is being made ready, final preparations and checks are underway.” (...)
“It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement,” the company said today.
Libya formally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie attack in 2003 and agreed to pay up to $2.7 billion in damages to families of the victims. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi finished settling claims of US Lockerbie victims with a $1.5 billion installment last year.
The country was removed from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism in 2006 after Qaddafi agreed to give up chemical weapons and compensate Lockerbie victims.
BP plc should stop a planned drilling campaign in Libya while links between the oil producer and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi are investigated, a group of US Senators said.
The London-based company has a rig in place to start a well in the Gulf of Sirte after completing a seismic survey last year. BP also plans to drill onshore in the Ghadames basin by the end of the year, Robert Wine, a spokesman for BP, said today.
BP, under political pressure to stop and clean up the worst oil spill in US history, signed an exploration agreement with Libya’s National Oil Corp in May 2007 during a visit by then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. US senators, who yesterday asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to examine whether BP helped secure al-Megrahi’s freedom from a Scottish jail to facilitate the deal, held a press conference today demanding BP stop drilling in Libya.
“Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people,” Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York wrote in the letter to Clinton yesterday. “The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?”
Menendez, Schumer and Lautenberg held a press conference in Washington this morning “to call for BP to suspend its oil drilling plans in Libya,” Mike Morey, a spokesman for Schumer, wrote in an e-mail.
Libya has proved oil reserves of 44.3 billion barrels, the most in Africa, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (...)
“Libya due to start in a matter of weeks,” Wine said today in an e-mail. “Rig is being made ready, final preparations and checks are underway.” (...)
“It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement,” the company said today.
Libya formally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie attack in 2003 and agreed to pay up to $2.7 billion in damages to families of the victims. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi finished settling claims of US Lockerbie victims with a $1.5 billion installment last year.
The country was removed from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism in 2006 after Qaddafi agreed to give up chemical weapons and compensate Lockerbie victims.
The only US newspaper to acknowledge that doubters exist?
While some of the family members of Britons who were killed in the Lockerbie bombing supported Mr Megrahi’s release, in part because of lingering doubts about his guilt, the families of several American victims were dismayed by the decision. The fact that Mr Megrahi has not yet died from his illness nearly a year after his release was the subject of several recent reports on both sides of the Atlantic. One doctor who examined him before his release told London’s Sunday Times this month, “There was always a chance he could live for 10 years, 20 years.”
On Monday, Senator Lautenberg and three Democratic colleagues asked the State Department to press British authorities to open their own investigation into the release of Mr Megrahi, The Associated Press reported.
A spokesman for the State Department, PJ Crowley, said on Monday, “There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We’ve been on the Megrahi watch since that time.” He added, “Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103.”
[From a post on The New York Times's news blog, The Lede by the blog's editor, Robert Mackey.]
On Monday, Senator Lautenberg and three Democratic colleagues asked the State Department to press British authorities to open their own investigation into the release of Mr Megrahi, The Associated Press reported.
A spokesman for the State Department, PJ Crowley, said on Monday, “There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We’ve been on the Megrahi watch since that time.” He added, “Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103.”
[From a post on The New York Times's news blog, The Lede by the blog's editor, Robert Mackey.]
Tuesday 13 July 2010
Senator Lautenberg asks Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate
BP's role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison is being questioned in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Sen Frank Lautenberg, who is requesting an investigation into the oil company's success in securing a drilling contract in Libya.
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, won early release from prison last year after a doctor testified that he was near death and it would be compassionate to let him die a free man. But there are suggestions that Megrahi, who was given just weeks to live but is still alive and kicking, may have been the linchpin in BP's efforts to secure drilling rights in the Gulf of Sidra.
"The prospect that oil contracts between BP and the government of Libya may have affected the release, as well as new questions about the veracity of medical reports detailing Mr Megrahi’s health at the time, are disturbing developments that demand the attention of Congress, Lautenberg, D-NJ, wrote to Sens John Kerry, D-Mass, and Richard Lugar, R-Ind, the co-chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee. (...)
The UK-based BP, which is responsible for the oil spill that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for 85 [days], admitted that in 2007 it raised concern that a "prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt" the oil deal, according to Lautenberg.
Megrahi originally had not been part of the prisoner transfer, but former British Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw later cited "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in including Megrahi.
BP could earn as much as $20 billion from the deal with Libya, set to begin next month.
"It is shocking to even contemplate that BP is profiting from the release of a terrorist with the blood of 189 Americans on his hands," Lautenberg wrote. "The families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 deserve to know whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests in this case."
[From a report published today on the website of FOX News. The Senator's letter can be read here.
An article on the website of the New York Daily News contains the following:]
BP admits it had an interest in the prsioner swap, and was concerned it would derail its drilling deal, but the company insists it did push the Megrahi case.
BP spokesman Mark Salt e-mailed the following:
*It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
*Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP’s exploration agreement.
*However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al-Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK Government.
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, won early release from prison last year after a doctor testified that he was near death and it would be compassionate to let him die a free man. But there are suggestions that Megrahi, who was given just weeks to live but is still alive and kicking, may have been the linchpin in BP's efforts to secure drilling rights in the Gulf of Sidra.
"The prospect that oil contracts between BP and the government of Libya may have affected the release, as well as new questions about the veracity of medical reports detailing Mr Megrahi’s health at the time, are disturbing developments that demand the attention of Congress, Lautenberg, D-NJ, wrote to Sens John Kerry, D-Mass, and Richard Lugar, R-Ind, the co-chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee. (...)
The UK-based BP, which is responsible for the oil spill that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for 85 [days], admitted that in 2007 it raised concern that a "prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt" the oil deal, according to Lautenberg.
Megrahi originally had not been part of the prisoner transfer, but former British Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw later cited "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in including Megrahi.
BP could earn as much as $20 billion from the deal with Libya, set to begin next month.
"It is shocking to even contemplate that BP is profiting from the release of a terrorist with the blood of 189 Americans on his hands," Lautenberg wrote. "The families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 deserve to know whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests in this case."
[From a report published today on the website of FOX News. The Senator's letter can be read here.
An article on the website of the New York Daily News contains the following:]
BP admits it had an interest in the prsioner swap, and was concerned it would derail its drilling deal, but the company insists it did push the Megrahi case.
BP spokesman Mark Salt e-mailed the following:
*It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
*Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP’s exploration agreement.
*However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al-Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK Government.
Sens to State Dept: Push UK on Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over an Associated Press news report just published on the CBS3 website. It reads in part:]
Their own request denied, four US senators are pressuring the State Department to push Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing. (...)
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation in a July 7 letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
"The decision by the Scottish government to reject our request to reinvestigate the decision to release this terrorist raises more suspicions as to whether there was a rotten deal between the United Kingdom and the Libya government," Schumer said Monday. "So we're calling on the State Department to put a full-court press on the United Kingdom to return this terrorist to prison."
In his response to the senators, British Ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald said due process was followed.
"The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament conducted an inquiry into Mr Megrahi's release earlier this year and concluded that the Scottish Executive's consideration of the case took place in accordance with normal good practice," Sheinwald said.
State Department spokesman PJ Crowley could not say if Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had received the letter from the senators seeking the investigation but said the US continues to watch the situation with Megrahi closely.
"We haven't changed our view. We think that the decision to release Mr. Megrahi last summer was a mistake," he told reporters in Washington.
"There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We've been on the Megrahi watch since that time," Crowley said. "Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103."
Their own request denied, four US senators are pressuring the State Department to push Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing. (...)
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation in a July 7 letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
"The decision by the Scottish government to reject our request to reinvestigate the decision to release this terrorist raises more suspicions as to whether there was a rotten deal between the United Kingdom and the Libya government," Schumer said Monday. "So we're calling on the State Department to put a full-court press on the United Kingdom to return this terrorist to prison."
In his response to the senators, British Ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald said due process was followed.
"The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament conducted an inquiry into Mr Megrahi's release earlier this year and concluded that the Scottish Executive's consideration of the case took place in accordance with normal good practice," Sheinwald said.
State Department spokesman PJ Crowley could not say if Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had received the letter from the senators seeking the investigation but said the US continues to watch the situation with Megrahi closely.
"We haven't changed our view. We think that the decision to release Mr. Megrahi last summer was a mistake," he told reporters in Washington.
"There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We've been on the Megrahi watch since that time," Crowley said. "Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103."
Sunday 11 July 2010
Senators call on Britain to probe release of Lockerbie bomber, who has outlived prognosis
[This is the headline over an Associated Press report in the Los Angeles Times of 7 July 2010. It reads as follows:]
Four US senators are calling on Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison in September because a doctor said the cancer-stricken man had only three months to live. However, the doctor later said al-Megrahi could live for another decade.
Al-Megrahi had served eight years of a life sentence for the Dec 21, 1988, bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 as it flew from London to New York.
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation Wednesday in a letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
[The reply by the UK ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, to Senator Gillibrand can be read here. The reply to the senators from the Scottish Government Counsellor, North America, can be read here.
Many other organs of the media have since picked up the story, among them BBC News and STV News.]
Four US senators are calling on Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison in September because a doctor said the cancer-stricken man had only three months to live. However, the doctor later said al-Megrahi could live for another decade.
Al-Megrahi had served eight years of a life sentence for the Dec 21, 1988, bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 as it flew from London to New York.
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation Wednesday in a letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
[The reply by the UK ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, to Senator Gillibrand can be read here. The reply to the senators from the Scottish Government Counsellor, North America, can be read here.
Many other organs of the media have since picked up the story, among them BBC News and STV News.]
Saturday 15 May 2010
Twentieth anniversary of report of Presidential Commission
[The following account is taken from the Wikipedia article Pan Am Flight 103.]
On 29 September 1989, President [George H W] Bush appointed Ann McLaughlin Korologos, former Secretary of Labor, as chairwoman of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism (PCAST) to review and report on aviation security policy in the light of the sabotage of flight PA103. Oliver "Buck" Revell, the FBI's Executive Assistant Director, was assigned to advise and assist PCAST in their task. Mrs Korologos and the PCAST team (Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt, Representative James Oberstar, General Thomas Richards, deputy commander of US forces in West Germany, and Edward Hidalgo, former Secretary of the US Navy) submitted their report, with its 64 recommendations, on 15 May 1990. The PCAST chairman also handed a sealed envelope to the President which was widely believed to apportion blame for the PA103 bombing. Extensively covered in The Guardian the next day, the PCAST report concluded:
"National will and the moral courage to exercise it are the ultimate means of defeating terrorism. The Commission recommends a more vigorous policy that not only pursues and punishes terrorists, but also makes state sponsors of terrorism pay a price for their actions."
Before submitting their report, the PCAST members met a group of British PA103 relatives at the US embassy in London on 12 February 1990. Twelve years later, on 11 July 2002, Scottish MP Tam Dalyell reminded the House of Commons of a controversial statement made at that 1990 embassy meeting by a PCAST member to one of the British relatives, Martin Cadman: "Your government and ours know exactly what happened. But they're never going to tell." The statement first came to public attention in the 1994 documentary film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie and was published in both The Guardian of 29 July 1995, and a special report from Private Eye magazine entitled "Lockerbie, the flight from justice" May/June 2001. Dalyell asserted in Parliament that the statement had never been refuted.
[And the following account is from the Canadian Attic blog.]
A US presidential commission issued a report on the December 1988 of a Pan American jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland that had killed all 259 people aboard and 11 more on the ground. The commission said that it was not certain how the bomb was smuggled aboard the plane, but cited evidence that it was an unaccompanied suitcase loaded in Frankfurt, West Germany. The report said that the security system for US civil aviation "is seriously flawed and has failed to provide the proper level of protection to the traveling public." The commission called for greatly increased security at US airports, the creation of the post of assistant secretary of transportation for security and intelligence, and establishment of a national system for warning passengers of credible threats against airlines or flights.
On 29 September 1989, President [George H W] Bush appointed Ann McLaughlin Korologos, former Secretary of Labor, as chairwoman of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism (PCAST) to review and report on aviation security policy in the light of the sabotage of flight PA103. Oliver "Buck" Revell, the FBI's Executive Assistant Director, was assigned to advise and assist PCAST in their task. Mrs Korologos and the PCAST team (Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt, Representative James Oberstar, General Thomas Richards, deputy commander of US forces in West Germany, and Edward Hidalgo, former Secretary of the US Navy) submitted their report, with its 64 recommendations, on 15 May 1990. The PCAST chairman also handed a sealed envelope to the President which was widely believed to apportion blame for the PA103 bombing. Extensively covered in The Guardian the next day, the PCAST report concluded:
"National will and the moral courage to exercise it are the ultimate means of defeating terrorism. The Commission recommends a more vigorous policy that not only pursues and punishes terrorists, but also makes state sponsors of terrorism pay a price for their actions."
Before submitting their report, the PCAST members met a group of British PA103 relatives at the US embassy in London on 12 February 1990. Twelve years later, on 11 July 2002, Scottish MP Tam Dalyell reminded the House of Commons of a controversial statement made at that 1990 embassy meeting by a PCAST member to one of the British relatives, Martin Cadman: "Your government and ours know exactly what happened. But they're never going to tell." The statement first came to public attention in the 1994 documentary film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie and was published in both The Guardian of 29 July 1995, and a special report from Private Eye magazine entitled "Lockerbie, the flight from justice" May/June 2001. Dalyell asserted in Parliament that the statement had never been refuted.
[And the following account is from the Canadian Attic blog.]
A US presidential commission issued a report on the December 1988 of a Pan American jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland that had killed all 259 people aboard and 11 more on the ground. The commission said that it was not certain how the bomb was smuggled aboard the plane, but cited evidence that it was an unaccompanied suitcase loaded in Frankfurt, West Germany. The report said that the security system for US civil aviation "is seriously flawed and has failed to provide the proper level of protection to the traveling public." The commission called for greatly increased security at US airports, the creation of the post of assistant secretary of transportation for security and intelligence, and establishment of a national system for warning passengers of credible threats against airlines or flights.
Monday 17 August 2009
Senators want Lockerbie bomber kept behind bars
[What follows is an article posted on the website of the Washington DC publication The Hill.]
Seven senators called on the Scottish government on Monday to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi behind bars for his role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 following recent media reports that he may be released.
Following his conviction in 2001, al-Megrahi – a former Libyan intelligence officer – was sentenced to serve 27 years in a Scottish prison for his role in the bombing of the transatlantic flight that killed 270 people – including 180 Americans on board and 11 Scots on the ground in southern Scotland.
“Our international agreement called for his sentence to be served in Scotland and we believe strongly their should be no deviation from this sentence,” said Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in their letter.
The letter, which calls the bombing “horrific” and “heinous,” was sent to the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill after recent media reports have speculated that the Scottish government is set to consider al-Megrahi’s early release or transfer back to a prison in his homeland of Libya.
Al-Megrahi is expected to drop his appeal this week, which legally would allow the Scottish government, if it desired, to take action on his imprisonment status.
MacAskill has met with both al-Megrahi and the families of the victims in recent weeks. The meetings have further fueled reports that MacAskill may be considering the Libyan government’s calls for al-Megrahi’s release.
Al-Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and has used his health as a reason in pleas for his own “compassionate” release.
The senators’ letter made the case for his continued imprisonment by comparing the bombing to more recent terrorist attacks on Americans.
“Until the tragic events of September 11, 2001, no terrorist act had killed more American civilians,” said the letter of the bombing of the flight, which was headed from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport with a majority of Americans on board.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has also recently called on MacAskill to continue al-Megrahi’s imprisonment until his sentence has been completed.
MacAskill’s aides said no decision has been made regarding al-Megrahi’s release, continued imprisonment, or transfer, according to the Associated Press.
Seven senators called on the Scottish government on Monday to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi behind bars for his role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 following recent media reports that he may be released.
Following his conviction in 2001, al-Megrahi – a former Libyan intelligence officer – was sentenced to serve 27 years in a Scottish prison for his role in the bombing of the transatlantic flight that killed 270 people – including 180 Americans on board and 11 Scots on the ground in southern Scotland.
“Our international agreement called for his sentence to be served in Scotland and we believe strongly their should be no deviation from this sentence,” said Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in their letter.
The letter, which calls the bombing “horrific” and “heinous,” was sent to the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill after recent media reports have speculated that the Scottish government is set to consider al-Megrahi’s early release or transfer back to a prison in his homeland of Libya.
Al-Megrahi is expected to drop his appeal this week, which legally would allow the Scottish government, if it desired, to take action on his imprisonment status.
MacAskill has met with both al-Megrahi and the families of the victims in recent weeks. The meetings have further fueled reports that MacAskill may be considering the Libyan government’s calls for al-Megrahi’s release.
Al-Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and has used his health as a reason in pleas for his own “compassionate” release.
The senators’ letter made the case for his continued imprisonment by comparing the bombing to more recent terrorist attacks on Americans.
“Until the tragic events of September 11, 2001, no terrorist act had killed more American civilians,” said the letter of the bombing of the flight, which was headed from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport with a majority of Americans on board.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has also recently called on MacAskill to continue al-Megrahi’s imprisonment until his sentence has been completed.
MacAskill’s aides said no decision has been made regarding al-Megrahi’s release, continued imprisonment, or transfer, according to the Associated Press.
Friday 21 November 2008
US Senate confirms ambassador to Libya
The US Senate has confirmed career diplomat Gene Cretz to be the first US Ambassador to Libya in 36 years. His nomination had been held up by Senate Democrats until Libya made good on its promise to fully compensate the families of victims of terrorist acts in the 1980s.
The Senate action late Thursday came after the Senate Democrat who had led the effort to block the nomination cleared the way for confirmation by noting that Libya last month paid $1.5 billion to relatives of victims of acts of terrorism for which Tripoli accepted responsibility.
"I lifted my hold. The process will work its way now," said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. (...)
Relatives of those who died in the Pan Am bombing joined Senator Lautenberg at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday to mark the settlement of claims. "We are here today to say that a measure of justice has finally prevailed," he said.
Kara Weipz lost her brother in the tragedy. "We are free now to close this chapter in our nightmare. Does it change the majority of feelings of families towards Mr. Gadhafi? Absolutely, positively not. And do the families believe that he himself or those high-ranking officials in his regime were responsible for this? Absolutely. And that does not change just because this was completed."
The Pan Am bombing claimed the lives of 270 people.
[From the website of Voice of America. The full article can be read here.]
The Senate action late Thursday came after the Senate Democrat who had led the effort to block the nomination cleared the way for confirmation by noting that Libya last month paid $1.5 billion to relatives of victims of acts of terrorism for which Tripoli accepted responsibility.
"I lifted my hold. The process will work its way now," said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. (...)
Relatives of those who died in the Pan Am bombing joined Senator Lautenberg at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday to mark the settlement of claims. "We are here today to say that a measure of justice has finally prevailed," he said.
Kara Weipz lost her brother in the tragedy. "We are free now to close this chapter in our nightmare. Does it change the majority of feelings of families towards Mr. Gadhafi? Absolutely, positively not. And do the families believe that he himself or those high-ranking officials in his regime were responsible for this? Absolutely. And that does not change just because this was completed."
The Pan Am bombing claimed the lives of 270 people.
[From the website of Voice of America. The full article can be read here.]
Thursday 13 November 2008
Justice for families of Pan Am 103
On Dec. 21, 1988, my brother was killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103 when it was bombed by Libyan terrorists over Lockerbie, Scotland. Two decades later, my family and the families of the 189 other Americans killed on that flight are finally able to claim some form of justice for our lost loved ones.
The Scottish high court convicted one Libyan intelligence officer for his involvement after the initial investigation, but the complexities of a crime perpetrated by a foreign government made it impossible to seek traditional criminal justice for all those responsible, so we turned to the civil court.
After many painful years of negotiations, the Libyan government finally agreed to pay $10 million to each victim's family. The first 80 percent of this sum was paid as planned, but the Libyan government withheld the remaining 20 percent as it negotiated restored diplomatic relations with the United States. The closer the restoration of these ties came, the harder we fought to ensure that the Libyan government was held accountable for its debt.
In July, the United States and Libya agreed that relations could be normalized only after Libya paid its full debt for its state-sponsored terrorism. On Oct. 31, the Libyan government executed full payment to the victims and their families.
While we may never know the names of all of those involved in this crime or see them face the punishment they so justly deserve, we can gain some peace from forcing the Libyan government to be accountable for its crimes. We thank Sen. Frank Lautenberg and others who stood by us the last two decades.
Kara Weipz
President
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103
[Letter from the president of the largest US organisation of relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, published in today's issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer]
The Scottish high court convicted one Libyan intelligence officer for his involvement after the initial investigation, but the complexities of a crime perpetrated by a foreign government made it impossible to seek traditional criminal justice for all those responsible, so we turned to the civil court.
After many painful years of negotiations, the Libyan government finally agreed to pay $10 million to each victim's family. The first 80 percent of this sum was paid as planned, but the Libyan government withheld the remaining 20 percent as it negotiated restored diplomatic relations with the United States. The closer the restoration of these ties came, the harder we fought to ensure that the Libyan government was held accountable for its debt.
In July, the United States and Libya agreed that relations could be normalized only after Libya paid its full debt for its state-sponsored terrorism. On Oct. 31, the Libyan government executed full payment to the victims and their families.
While we may never know the names of all of those involved in this crime or see them face the punishment they so justly deserve, we can gain some peace from forcing the Libyan government to be accountable for its crimes. We thank Sen. Frank Lautenberg and others who stood by us the last two decades.
Kara Weipz
President
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103
[Letter from the president of the largest US organisation of relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, published in today's issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer]
Thursday 25 September 2008
US lawmakers block ambassador to Libya over fund
Reuters reports that the confirmation of the United States ambassador to Libya has been blocked in the Senate until the last payment of compensation is actually made to the relatives of those killed at Lockerbie. The report reads in part:
'On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey put on hold the nomination of diplomat Gene Cretz to become Washington's envoy to Libya until American victims were paid from a fund agreed on last month by both countries.
'"Libya has not yet satisfied its obligations to U.S. victims of its terrorist acts and I will object to this nomination's moving forward until those victims receive justice," said Lautenberg, a Democrat.(...)
'Appointing a U.S. ambassador was seen as one of the rewards for Libya giving up its weapons of mass destruction program in 2003, which led to a warming of ties between the former foes.
'Relatives of the Pan Am victims welcomed the Senate foreign relations committee's decision.
'"The committee's action ... has sent an unequivocal message to the administration and Libya that the Senate will not appoint a U.S. ambassador until Libya has fulfilled the agreement," said a statement from a group of families.'
The full report can be read here. I am grateful to Big David for drawing this story to my attention.
'On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey put on hold the nomination of diplomat Gene Cretz to become Washington's envoy to Libya until American victims were paid from a fund agreed on last month by both countries.
'"Libya has not yet satisfied its obligations to U.S. victims of its terrorist acts and I will object to this nomination's moving forward until those victims receive justice," said Lautenberg, a Democrat.(...)
'Appointing a U.S. ambassador was seen as one of the rewards for Libya giving up its weapons of mass destruction program in 2003, which led to a warming of ties between the former foes.
'Relatives of the Pan Am victims welcomed the Senate foreign relations committee's decision.
'"The committee's action ... has sent an unequivocal message to the administration and Libya that the Senate will not appoint a U.S. ambassador until Libya has fulfilled the agreement," said a statement from a group of families.'
The full report can be read here. I am grateful to Big David for drawing this story to my attention.
Sunday 20 July 2008
Lockerbie Appeal : Making Haste Slowly
Here, reproduced with his permission, is the text of an e-mail sent earlier today by Patrick Haseldine to Professor Hans Köchler and myself:
Today I extracted from the FCO's Libya website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/libya?profile=intRelations&pg=4) the following section related to the Lockerbie bombing:
"The Lockerbie trial began on 3 May 2000. On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven. Al-Megrahi subsequently appealed against his conviction. His appeal was refused on 14 March 2002.
On 23 September 2003 Al-Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for his conviction to be reviewed. On 28 June 2007 the Commission referred his case back to the High Court, allowing him to appeal against his conviction for a second time.
Trilateral talks began on 13 February 2001 to discuss how Libya could meet the Security Council’s remaining requirements. As a result of these talks, in August 2003 the UK tabled a resolution recommending that the Security Council lift UN sanctions. That resolution was passed by the Security Council on 12 September 2003."
On 10 July 2008 Prof. Black e-mailed the FCO pointing out that the verdict on Fhimah was in fact not guilty but the error has not yet been corrected (see Lockerbie verdict posted on Prof. Koechler's website http://i-p-o.org/Lockerbie_Verdict-31Jan2001.htm).
As regards the delay of over a year in arranging Mr Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, Prof. Black wrote an article on 17 July 2008 entitled 'Justice Delayed...', posing these two questions:
"Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?" (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/justice-delayed.html)
US and British diplomats (as I used to be) would probably deny that there has been a delay. Rather, they would euphemistically say it is a case of making haste slowly. I offer three reasons that might be seen, from an American perspective, to justify maintaining the slow progress in having Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction overturned:
1. The Lockerbie bombing took place during the Reagan/Bush Snr interregnum. President Bush Jr is unlikely to allow the case to unravel and the convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber to be acquitted before the new president gets sworn in next January.
2. PA103 relatives and US politicians (eg Senators Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg) insist that Libya should pay a further $540 million in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya).
3. Lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Libya hinged upon the payment of compensation for UTA772 as well as PA103 (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/03/libyas-lockerbie-compensation-proposal.html) The US will doubtless want Libya to pay some or all of the $6 billion compensation for the UTA772 bombing before Mr Megrahi's appeal can be heard.
And finally here is a question from me: since the twentieth anniversary of the PA103 disaster is on 21 December 2008, will a future criminal prosecution (perhaps of apartheid South Africa) in respect of the Lockerbie bombing be ruled out by the 20-year statute of limitations?
[Note by RB: On one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.]
Today I extracted from the FCO's Libya website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/libya?profile=intRelations&pg=4) the following section related to the Lockerbie bombing:
"The Lockerbie trial began on 3 May 2000. On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven. Al-Megrahi subsequently appealed against his conviction. His appeal was refused on 14 March 2002.
On 23 September 2003 Al-Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for his conviction to be reviewed. On 28 June 2007 the Commission referred his case back to the High Court, allowing him to appeal against his conviction for a second time.
Trilateral talks began on 13 February 2001 to discuss how Libya could meet the Security Council’s remaining requirements. As a result of these talks, in August 2003 the UK tabled a resolution recommending that the Security Council lift UN sanctions. That resolution was passed by the Security Council on 12 September 2003."
On 10 July 2008 Prof. Black e-mailed the FCO pointing out that the verdict on Fhimah was in fact not guilty but the error has not yet been corrected (see Lockerbie verdict posted on Prof. Koechler's website http://i-p-o.org/Lockerbie_Verdict-31Jan2001.htm).
As regards the delay of over a year in arranging Mr Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, Prof. Black wrote an article on 17 July 2008 entitled 'Justice Delayed...', posing these two questions:
"Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?" (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/justice-delayed.html)
US and British diplomats (as I used to be) would probably deny that there has been a delay. Rather, they would euphemistically say it is a case of making haste slowly. I offer three reasons that might be seen, from an American perspective, to justify maintaining the slow progress in having Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction overturned:
1. The Lockerbie bombing took place during the Reagan/Bush Snr interregnum. President Bush Jr is unlikely to allow the case to unravel and the convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber to be acquitted before the new president gets sworn in next January.
2. PA103 relatives and US politicians (eg Senators Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg) insist that Libya should pay a further $540 million in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya).
3. Lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Libya hinged upon the payment of compensation for UTA772 as well as PA103 (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/03/libyas-lockerbie-compensation-proposal.html) The US will doubtless want Libya to pay some or all of the $6 billion compensation for the UTA772 bombing before Mr Megrahi's appeal can be heard.
And finally here is a question from me: since the twentieth anniversary of the PA103 disaster is on 21 December 2008, will a future criminal prosecution (perhaps of apartheid South Africa) in respect of the Lockerbie bombing be ruled out by the 20-year statute of limitations?
[Note by RB: On one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.]
Tuesday 11 December 2007
Senators call for Libya to complete payments to Lockerbie relatives
Agence France Presse has a story to the effect that Hillary Clinton and seven other US senators have written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressing that the process of normalization of US relations with Libya should not proceed further until Libya has fully compensated, amongst others, the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster. See
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxda-5ybZ7Gzj3OtpbouZ7vpDeUg
The inference in the senators' letter that Libya has reneged on its compensation undertakings is unwarranted. The agreement that was reached between the Lockerbie relatives' lawyers and Libya involved staged payments on the occurrence of certain events within a specified time frame. One of those events, which it was within the power of the United States -- not Libya -- to bring about, did not take place within the specified period. The final compensation payment was accordingly never triggered.
For details of the compensation agreement, see
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/08/13/lockerbie/
The story has now been picked up by the Albany NY Times Union whose website runs the following:
"Pressuring Libya
And here is a slightly more balanced paragraph from US News and World Report of 15 December 2007:
"The two cases that have the Senate's attention are the 1988 downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, and the 1986 bombing of the La Belle disco in West Berlin, which took the lives of two U.S. servicemen. The Pan Am families—some of whom find the U.S.-Libyan rapprochement scandalous—say Libya reneged on the last $2 million-per-family installment of a legal settlement. Libya says the United States missed a legal deadline for removing it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism—it did so later—thus freeing it from its obligation. On the La Belle case, Libya has not made any payments to American victims or their families, though a settlement was considered close last year."
See http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/12/13/libya-moves-back-into-circulation.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxda-5ybZ7Gzj3OtpbouZ7vpDeUg
The inference in the senators' letter that Libya has reneged on its compensation undertakings is unwarranted. The agreement that was reached between the Lockerbie relatives' lawyers and Libya involved staged payments on the occurrence of certain events within a specified time frame. One of those events, which it was within the power of the United States -- not Libya -- to bring about, did not take place within the specified period. The final compensation payment was accordingly never triggered.
For details of the compensation agreement, see
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/08/13/lockerbie/
The story has now been picked up by the Albany NY Times Union whose website runs the following:
"Pressuring Libya
Three years after it committed to compensate victims of the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the Libyan government still hasn't paid all that was due. Ditto a 2006 promise to pay victims of a 1986 dance club bombing in Germany.
Now New York's U.S. senators want Libya to put its money where its mouth is. Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chuck Schumer are among eight senators who sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, calling on her to use an upcoming diplomatic visit to Libya to pressure that nation's longtime leader, Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi.
"Congress has made it clear that the U.S. is not ready for full normalization of relations with Libya," the senators wrote. "If you do decide to travel there, we assume this is because you are confident that the Libyan government will fulfill the settlement obligations it has made with American victims of Libyan terrorism."
Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, en route from London to New York City. The attack killed 270 people on the plane and on the ground, including 35 Syracuse University students, and several people with ties to the Capital Region.
The Libyan government assumed responsibility for the attack and agreed to pay $10 million to each family killed. Part of the $2.7 billion has been paid. A final $2 million installment to each family is outstanding.
In addition to Schumer and Clinton, the letter was signed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menedez of New Jersey, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Chris Dodd, all Democrats, and Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota."
See http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=647150&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=LOCAL&newsdate=12/15/2007And here is a slightly more balanced paragraph from US News and World Report of 15 December 2007:
"The two cases that have the Senate's attention are the 1988 downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, and the 1986 bombing of the La Belle disco in West Berlin, which took the lives of two U.S. servicemen. The Pan Am families—some of whom find the U.S.-Libyan rapprochement scandalous—say Libya reneged on the last $2 million-per-family installment of a legal settlement. Libya says the United States missed a legal deadline for removing it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism—it did so later—thus freeing it from its obligation. On the La Belle case, Libya has not made any payments to American victims or their families, though a settlement was considered close last year."
See http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/12/13/libya-moves-back-into-circulation.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)