[This is the title of a new book about the town of Lockerbie. In contrast to Jill Haldane's recent book, which is an oral history of the experiences of Lockerbie residents at the time of the disaster and thereafter, this book is a pictorial portrait of the town. A review by Boyd Tonkin in The Independent reads as follows:]
When disasters happen, small places marked out by fate may endure a spell in the unwanted limelight, then vanish from our minds. So it was when 270 people died as a bomb destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in the Scottish borders on 21 December 1988.
But among the victims were 35 students from Syracuse University in New York State, homeward bound. Since the early 1990s, a determined programme of exchanges has sent young people from Lockerbie to Syracuse, and (a few years later) vice versa.
These healing contacts are now commemorated in Looking for Lockerbie (Syracuse University Press, £39.95), a book of pictures and words dedicated to the town and compiled by Syracuse professors Lawrence Mason Jr and Melissa Chessher. From chippies and hunt gatherings to boy racers and sheep farmers, they document the community in tender, lavish detail.
Mason calls the book "a love poem from one population to another". And, because they look so hard, they find more than the cliché images of rural Scotland.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Pan Am 103 and UTA 772
The latest post on The Masonic Verses blog concerns the destruction of UTA 772 over Niger on 19 September 1989. Interesting parallels and contrasts are drawn with the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
The wheels of justice...
... grind exceeding slow.
In my coverage on this blog of the tenth procedural hearing on 18 December 2008, I wrote the following:
'The remaining issue discussed was the timing of the next procedural hearing (to consider the further petitions for disclosure lodged on behalf of the appellant before the ninth procedural hearing on 27 and 28 November). Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi proposed that it should be on a date between 21 and 23 January, it having been indicated by the court administrative office that all three of the judges were available then. Ronnie Clancy QC argued that this was, for various reasons, far too early for the Crown and that a date should be fixed in February or March. The Advocate General concurred. The court indicated that it would consider these submissions and intimate its decision on the date of the next hearing “in early course”.'
The dates fixed by the court for this procedural hearing are Wednesday 18th to Friday 20th February 2009.
In my coverage on this blog of the tenth procedural hearing on 18 December 2008, I wrote the following:
'The remaining issue discussed was the timing of the next procedural hearing (to consider the further petitions for disclosure lodged on behalf of the appellant before the ninth procedural hearing on 27 and 28 November). Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi proposed that it should be on a date between 21 and 23 January, it having been indicated by the court administrative office that all three of the judges were available then. Ronnie Clancy QC argued that this was, for various reasons, far too early for the Crown and that a date should be fixed in February or March. The Advocate General concurred. The court indicated that it would consider these submissions and intimate its decision on the date of the next hearing “in early course”.'
The dates fixed by the court for this procedural hearing are Wednesday 18th to Friday 20th February 2009.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Megrahi's explanation for use of coded passport
[What follows is from an article by Marcello Mega in today’s issue of the Sunday Mail. The full text can be read here. Two other short articles in the same newspaper dealing with aspects of the evidence in the case can be accessed here and here.]
Secret testimony by Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi which he claims proves his innocence can today be revealed by the Sunday Mail.
In two dramatic statements NEVER read out during his trial for mass murder, he: Admits he was a secret agent who illegally bought plane parts, police cars and food which Libya could not import due to sanctions.
Insists he needed a fake passport for his wheeling and dealing - not to slip into Malta to plant a bomb in the suitcase which blew up Pan Am Flight 103.
Claims he went to Malta to buy carpets and find a carpenter willing to supply materials unavailable in Libya at the time.
Critically, the judges who convicted him of killing 270 people did not hear this explanation.
His false passport carrying the name Abdusamad was cited as damning proof by prosecutors that he worked for the Libyan secret service and was trying to cover up his trips.
In the judgment that condemned him for mass murder, they said: "There was no evidence as to why this passport was issued to him."
But terminally ill Megrahi said he needed the passport to do his job for Libyan Arab Airlines.
This allowed him to beat sanctions when trading with other countries for new parts for his bosses. (…)
He said: "I am told that I used the Abdusamad passport when I went to Malta on December 20. This was not for any clandestine reason.
"In order to travel from Tripoli to Malta I do not need to use a passport at all and can simply use an identification card issued by the Immigration Department in Libya.
"All Libyans could do this, although it applied only for trips to and from Malta.
"Secondly, as an Libyan Arab Airlines employee and as someone well known in Tripoli and at the airport in Malta, I could get away without using a passport or an identification card but simply by wearing my LAA uniform. This may sound ridiculous but it is true. If I wanted to do something clandestine in such a way, there would be absolutely no record at all of me going from Tripoli to Malta and back again."
Megrahi wanted to take the stand at his trial in 2000 and 2001 but his legal team, headed by Bill Taylor QC, opted to rely on their belief that the Crown had failed to prove their case.
Without hearing his account, three judges, sitting without a jury, found Megrahi guilty of the worst terrorist act ever perpetrated in Europe.
They attached considerable weight to his short trip on December 20 and 21, 1988, accepting the Crown's argument that Megrahi played a central role in getting the bomb on to a flight at Luqa Airport.
Megrahi's … statement was taken after he and his co-accused, [al-Amin] Khalifa Fhimah, had submitted to the Scottish authorities for trial under Scots law in the Netherlands. (…)
Megrahi's account will lend further weight to the arguments of people who believe in his innocence.
They include Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the trial in a neutral land, and Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing.
Secret testimony by Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi which he claims proves his innocence can today be revealed by the Sunday Mail.
In two dramatic statements NEVER read out during his trial for mass murder, he: Admits he was a secret agent who illegally bought plane parts, police cars and food which Libya could not import due to sanctions.
Insists he needed a fake passport for his wheeling and dealing - not to slip into Malta to plant a bomb in the suitcase which blew up Pan Am Flight 103.
Claims he went to Malta to buy carpets and find a carpenter willing to supply materials unavailable in Libya at the time.
Critically, the judges who convicted him of killing 270 people did not hear this explanation.
His false passport carrying the name Abdusamad was cited as damning proof by prosecutors that he worked for the Libyan secret service and was trying to cover up his trips.
In the judgment that condemned him for mass murder, they said: "There was no evidence as to why this passport was issued to him."
But terminally ill Megrahi said he needed the passport to do his job for Libyan Arab Airlines.
This allowed him to beat sanctions when trading with other countries for new parts for his bosses. (…)
He said: "I am told that I used the Abdusamad passport when I went to Malta on December 20. This was not for any clandestine reason.
"In order to travel from Tripoli to Malta I do not need to use a passport at all and can simply use an identification card issued by the Immigration Department in Libya.
"All Libyans could do this, although it applied only for trips to and from Malta.
"Secondly, as an Libyan Arab Airlines employee and as someone well known in Tripoli and at the airport in Malta, I could get away without using a passport or an identification card but simply by wearing my LAA uniform. This may sound ridiculous but it is true. If I wanted to do something clandestine in such a way, there would be absolutely no record at all of me going from Tripoli to Malta and back again."
Megrahi wanted to take the stand at his trial in 2000 and 2001 but his legal team, headed by Bill Taylor QC, opted to rely on their belief that the Crown had failed to prove their case.
Without hearing his account, three judges, sitting without a jury, found Megrahi guilty of the worst terrorist act ever perpetrated in Europe.
They attached considerable weight to his short trip on December 20 and 21, 1988, accepting the Crown's argument that Megrahi played a central role in getting the bomb on to a flight at Luqa Airport.
Megrahi's … statement was taken after he and his co-accused, [al-Amin] Khalifa Fhimah, had submitted to the Scottish authorities for trial under Scots law in the Netherlands. (…)
Megrahi's account will lend further weight to the arguments of people who believe in his innocence.
They include Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the trial in a neutral land, and Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing.
Police call to scrap the right to trial by jury
Scotland's senior police officers have told ministers the automatic right to trial by jury for the most serious crimes should be abolished. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Acpos) said juries should remain the general rule in criminal trials, but in long and complex cases "a jury may be disposed of ... with such trials proceeding in another manner".
Options include a single judge sitting alone or a panel of judges.
Acpos also said ministers should be consulted on which trials are run without a jury - a fundamental break from the current system, where the Crown Office decides how to prosecute cases independently of politicians.
One human rights lawyer last night called the police plan "a recipe for disaster".
Jury trials for the most serious, or "solemn", crimes have been a pillar of the Scottish legal system since the Middle Ages.
The only modern precedent for dispensing with a jury in solemn proceedings was the trial of two men accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which was heard by three judges.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission later concluded that the conviction arising from the trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was unsafe, and it is now being appealed.
[From today's edition of the Sunday Herald. The full article can be read here.]
Options include a single judge sitting alone or a panel of judges.
Acpos also said ministers should be consulted on which trials are run without a jury - a fundamental break from the current system, where the Crown Office decides how to prosecute cases independently of politicians.
One human rights lawyer last night called the police plan "a recipe for disaster".
Jury trials for the most serious, or "solemn", crimes have been a pillar of the Scottish legal system since the Middle Ages.
The only modern precedent for dispensing with a jury in solemn proceedings was the trial of two men accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which was heard by three judges.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission later concluded that the conviction arising from the trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was unsafe, and it is now being appealed.
[From today's edition of the Sunday Herald. The full article can be read here.]
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Case against Susan Lindauer dropped
On 17 October 2007, I posted on this blog an article by Michael Collins about Susan Lindauer and her connection to the Lockerbie case. That post can be read here. In a new article in Scoop Independent News, Collins reports that the US federal Government on 15 January 2009 dropped the charges (of acting as an unregistered agent for Iraq) against Ms Lindauer. One paragraph reads:
'Lindauer offered an affidavit concerning the Lockerbie bombing in 1998. Her statement was based on her discussions with Dr Richard Fuisz, whom she named as her CIA handler. Dr Fuisz was said to be "a major operative in the Middle East in the 1980s." Since then the Scottish Criminal Cases [Review] Commission has since uncovered irregularities in the evidence against the two Libyans convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.'
'Lindauer offered an affidavit concerning the Lockerbie bombing in 1998. Her statement was based on her discussions with Dr Richard Fuisz, whom she named as her CIA handler. Dr Fuisz was said to be "a major operative in the Middle East in the 1980s." Since then the Scottish Criminal Cases [Review] Commission has since uncovered irregularities in the evidence against the two Libyans convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.'
Megrahi should be released on bail urgently
If Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is between a rock and a hard place (Leader, The Herald, January 15), then it is a combination of political and judicial manoeuvring that places him there.
The political and legal establishments have all the appearance of being tied to a rail-line as Megrahi's appeal inexorably bears down on them. How to derail him and avert the impending disaster that will reverberate around the world? I can understand your assertion that the Crown Office would find Megrahi's repatriation to Libya palatable but for exactly the opposite reason; the realisation that it did not have a case would have it wishing to get rid of him by any means other than having to re-examine this case in full view of the world's media.
The Scottish Government will come under intense pressure to accede to the wishes of Westminster. The Scottish Government should resist, indeed pre-empt, that pressure by First Minister Alex Salmond bailing Mr Megrahi immediately on compassionate grounds, pending his appeal.
Let us hear no more about the legal impediments to such action. A coach and horses was driven through Scottish legal requirements to bring Megrahi to trial in the first place.
The need to put someone, anyone, in the dock for the Lockerbie bombing has already left the Scottish legal establishment's reputation undermined. If this appeal reaches court, it will be further damaged. Now is the last opportunity to deal fairly with this man and, in turn, redeem what is left of our reputation.
[A letter from John Fowler, published in today's issue of The Herald. The Scottish Government has no power to release Mr Megrahi on bail pending his appeal: that is a matter for the court. But the Scottish Government does have the power, if it so chooses, to order his compassionate release from HMP Greenock because of the state of his health. See the Justice for Megrahi website.]
The political and legal establishments have all the appearance of being tied to a rail-line as Megrahi's appeal inexorably bears down on them. How to derail him and avert the impending disaster that will reverberate around the world? I can understand your assertion that the Crown Office would find Megrahi's repatriation to Libya palatable but for exactly the opposite reason; the realisation that it did not have a case would have it wishing to get rid of him by any means other than having to re-examine this case in full view of the world's media.
The Scottish Government will come under intense pressure to accede to the wishes of Westminster. The Scottish Government should resist, indeed pre-empt, that pressure by First Minister Alex Salmond bailing Mr Megrahi immediately on compassionate grounds, pending his appeal.
Let us hear no more about the legal impediments to such action. A coach and horses was driven through Scottish legal requirements to bring Megrahi to trial in the first place.
The need to put someone, anyone, in the dock for the Lockerbie bombing has already left the Scottish legal establishment's reputation undermined. If this appeal reaches court, it will be further damaged. Now is the last opportunity to deal fairly with this man and, in turn, redeem what is left of our reputation.
[A letter from John Fowler, published in today's issue of The Herald. The Scottish Government has no power to release Mr Megrahi on bail pending his appeal: that is a matter for the court. But the Scottish Government does have the power, if it so chooses, to order his compassionate release from HMP Greenock because of the state of his health. See the Justice for Megrahi website.]
Friday, 16 January 2009
Follow-up on prisoner transfer
Today's issue of The Herald has a follow-up article on the alleged moves (which would involve abandonment of the current appeal) to secure Abdelbaset Megrahi's transfer back to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence. It reads in part:
'The father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing plans to meet the man convicted of carrying out the atrocity to discuss a diplomatic deal which would allow the Libyan to return home, ending any prospect of an appeal.
'As revealed by The Herald yesterday, official talks have been held in secret on allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya but any appeal proceedings would have to be dropped for the transfer to be agreed. (...)
'He wants to raise the issues at a meeting with Megrahi which he hopes will take place "fairly soon" but he said he would not ask the Libyan, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to stay in Scotland simply so the evidence can be heard in court.
'He said: "I couldn't possibly go to him and say Please continue the appeal because we want to get to the truth'. I couldn't possibly take that attitude. He is an intelligent man, an honest kind of guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he is mulling over his decision, considering the effects of it on people like myself, people who want to get to the truth.
"I wouldn't want him hanging back on the decision to go home because he thought that he shouldn't, out of loyalty to people like me." (...)
'Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said it was "very important" that evidence collated for a future appeal should be released even if legal proceedings are dropped.
'He said: "Theoretically all of this material is Megrahi's. He is the client and he, or his wife and children, would make the decision. I can't think of any reason why the material that Megrahi's lawyers have gathered for the appeal shouldn't simply be released into the public domain.
'"It would be a very unusual step and there are difficulties. Some of the material that has been discovered will be, I think, highly defamatory so if it is simply disclosed without any legal protection that could cause legal difficulties."
'Dr Swire, who first met Megrahi more than three years ago, said: "I would hope some outlet for the evidence could be found but it would have to be used in a format where there was credibility."
'During First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the "prisoner transfer agreement" was raised by Conservative leader Annabel Goldie, who asked whether the integrity and principles of the Scottish justice system would be upheld in relation to any plan to release Megrahi. Alex Salmond replied "yes".
'The Tory leader then asked if Megrahi would be returned to Libya, adding that releasing the bomber would cause "deep unease". Mr Salmond said he could not prejudge or comment on a decision he might be asked to make.'
The Scotsman also has a brief article on the matter. It can be read here.
'The father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing plans to meet the man convicted of carrying out the atrocity to discuss a diplomatic deal which would allow the Libyan to return home, ending any prospect of an appeal.
'As revealed by The Herald yesterday, official talks have been held in secret on allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya but any appeal proceedings would have to be dropped for the transfer to be agreed. (...)
'He wants to raise the issues at a meeting with Megrahi which he hopes will take place "fairly soon" but he said he would not ask the Libyan, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to stay in Scotland simply so the evidence can be heard in court.
'He said: "I couldn't possibly go to him and say Please continue the appeal because we want to get to the truth'. I couldn't possibly take that attitude. He is an intelligent man, an honest kind of guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he is mulling over his decision, considering the effects of it on people like myself, people who want to get to the truth.
"I wouldn't want him hanging back on the decision to go home because he thought that he shouldn't, out of loyalty to people like me." (...)
'Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said it was "very important" that evidence collated for a future appeal should be released even if legal proceedings are dropped.
'He said: "Theoretically all of this material is Megrahi's. He is the client and he, or his wife and children, would make the decision. I can't think of any reason why the material that Megrahi's lawyers have gathered for the appeal shouldn't simply be released into the public domain.
'"It would be a very unusual step and there are difficulties. Some of the material that has been discovered will be, I think, highly defamatory so if it is simply disclosed without any legal protection that could cause legal difficulties."
'Dr Swire, who first met Megrahi more than three years ago, said: "I would hope some outlet for the evidence could be found but it would have to be used in a format where there was credibility."
'During First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the "prisoner transfer agreement" was raised by Conservative leader Annabel Goldie, who asked whether the integrity and principles of the Scottish justice system would be upheld in relation to any plan to release Megrahi. Alex Salmond replied "yes".
'The Tory leader then asked if Megrahi would be returned to Libya, adding that releasing the bomber would cause "deep unease". Mr Salmond said he could not prejudge or comment on a decision he might be asked to make.'
The Scotsman also has a brief article on the matter. It can be read here.
Thursday, 15 January 2009
Secret talks on deal to return Megrahi to Libya
[This is the headline over a front-page article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads:]
Official talks are being held in secret which could result in the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing dropping his appeal and being freed from Greenock Prison and sent back to Libya under a diplomatic deal.
The Herald can reveal today that senior civil servants from both the Westminster and Holyrood administrations have met a delegation from Tripoli to discuss how to resolve the impasse over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
It is understood an agreement could be reached within months which would see him serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence with his family in Libya.
Megrahi is suffering from advanced prostate cancer but has been denied bail by judges pending his appeal. The appeal is due to begin on April 27, but could last as long as 12 months because of the complexity of the case and volume of material to be examined.
However, while he wants to clear his name, it is far from certain that he would survive such a long appeal case, and now there is an opportunity for the UK and Libya to settle the matter away from the courts and through diplomatic channels.
According to Libyan officials, senior civil servants at Whitehall have actively "encouraged" them to apply for prisoner transfer for Megrahi - a move likely to be highly unpopular with campaigners and some of the relatives of the victims of the bombing, who want to hear the fresh evidence in open court.
A Libyan source said: "We have been encouraged to apply for the prisoner transfer option once the agreement is ratified, but there are concerns as to whether the UK Government can be trusted."
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) was signed off by a delegation from Tripoli and senior UK officials in November and is due to be ratified by the UK and Libyan parliaments in March.
It would take months for an agreement on such a transfer to be reached, partly because Megrahi is serving a life sentence and his case would have to be reviewed by the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board.
The final decision will ultimately lie with Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary - a point clarified last year during the very public argument which followed the Scottish Government's discovery that it had not been privy to the details of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi in May 2007 as part of the "deal in the desert".
While Whitehall officials denied the deal and subsequent PTA had anything to do with the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the row between the Scottish and UK Governments highlighted the fact that it was about Megrahi.
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said: "If this happens it will leave a stain on the Scottish criminal justice system because lots of people now believe there is something wrong with the conviction if he decides he wants to go home and is allowed no other options.
"But is that really the path a civilised legal system should be taking? Compelling him to go down that path would leave serious questions about the criminal justice system unanswered."
Neither the Foreign Office nor the Scottish Government is able to comment publicly on the fact they are encouraging an application for a transfer, such is the sensitivity of the case.
A UK Government spokesman said: "HM Government continues to engage positively with Libya, but it remains the case that any decision relating to an individual prisoner will be for Scottish ministers to take."
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "There have been no recent meetings between Scottish Government officials and representatives of the Libyan government. However, if the Libyan officials were to seek further meetings for factual information, we would be happy to provide that.
"The meetings last year were purely to provide factual information. No encouragement or advice was given on any of the procedures open to Mr Megrahi."
[A further article headed "Libyan may not live to see conclusion of appeal: Try to clear name or return home: Megrahi faces decision" appears in the inside pages.
A leader headed "The Megrahi dilemma" ends with the following paragraph:
'Megrahi's return home under the PTA might seem a neat solution but it ignores several factors. Megrahi continues to plead innocence and wants to clear his name (the main witness against him has been largely discredited). Testing all the evidence, including the secret document, in an appeal hearing offers the best hope of establishing the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. The opportunity will be gone if there is no appeal. The prospect of securing any subsequent convictions, should that be a possibility, would be remote as the world has moved on and relations with the countries suspected of involvement, including Libya, Iran and Syria, have changed. If, however, the integrity and independence of the Scottish judicial system is paramount, the appeal process should be allowed to run its course and make a final determination. Justice should be blind, not thwarted by political or diplomatic convenience.'
The issue has also been raised in the Scottish Parliament. The exchange between Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Tory group and First Minister Alex Salmond can be read here.]
Official talks are being held in secret which could result in the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing dropping his appeal and being freed from Greenock Prison and sent back to Libya under a diplomatic deal.
The Herald can reveal today that senior civil servants from both the Westminster and Holyrood administrations have met a delegation from Tripoli to discuss how to resolve the impasse over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
It is understood an agreement could be reached within months which would see him serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence with his family in Libya.
Megrahi is suffering from advanced prostate cancer but has been denied bail by judges pending his appeal. The appeal is due to begin on April 27, but could last as long as 12 months because of the complexity of the case and volume of material to be examined.
However, while he wants to clear his name, it is far from certain that he would survive such a long appeal case, and now there is an opportunity for the UK and Libya to settle the matter away from the courts and through diplomatic channels.
According to Libyan officials, senior civil servants at Whitehall have actively "encouraged" them to apply for prisoner transfer for Megrahi - a move likely to be highly unpopular with campaigners and some of the relatives of the victims of the bombing, who want to hear the fresh evidence in open court.
A Libyan source said: "We have been encouraged to apply for the prisoner transfer option once the agreement is ratified, but there are concerns as to whether the UK Government can be trusted."
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) was signed off by a delegation from Tripoli and senior UK officials in November and is due to be ratified by the UK and Libyan parliaments in March.
It would take months for an agreement on such a transfer to be reached, partly because Megrahi is serving a life sentence and his case would have to be reviewed by the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board.
The final decision will ultimately lie with Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary - a point clarified last year during the very public argument which followed the Scottish Government's discovery that it had not been privy to the details of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi in May 2007 as part of the "deal in the desert".
While Whitehall officials denied the deal and subsequent PTA had anything to do with the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the row between the Scottish and UK Governments highlighted the fact that it was about Megrahi.
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said: "If this happens it will leave a stain on the Scottish criminal justice system because lots of people now believe there is something wrong with the conviction if he decides he wants to go home and is allowed no other options.
"But is that really the path a civilised legal system should be taking? Compelling him to go down that path would leave serious questions about the criminal justice system unanswered."
Neither the Foreign Office nor the Scottish Government is able to comment publicly on the fact they are encouraging an application for a transfer, such is the sensitivity of the case.
A UK Government spokesman said: "HM Government continues to engage positively with Libya, but it remains the case that any decision relating to an individual prisoner will be for Scottish ministers to take."
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "There have been no recent meetings between Scottish Government officials and representatives of the Libyan government. However, if the Libyan officials were to seek further meetings for factual information, we would be happy to provide that.
"The meetings last year were purely to provide factual information. No encouragement or advice was given on any of the procedures open to Mr Megrahi."
[A further article headed "Libyan may not live to see conclusion of appeal: Try to clear name or return home: Megrahi faces decision" appears in the inside pages.
A leader headed "The Megrahi dilemma" ends with the following paragraph:
'Megrahi's return home under the PTA might seem a neat solution but it ignores several factors. Megrahi continues to plead innocence and wants to clear his name (the main witness against him has been largely discredited). Testing all the evidence, including the secret document, in an appeal hearing offers the best hope of establishing the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. The opportunity will be gone if there is no appeal. The prospect of securing any subsequent convictions, should that be a possibility, would be remote as the world has moved on and relations with the countries suspected of involvement, including Libya, Iran and Syria, have changed. If, however, the integrity and independence of the Scottish judicial system is paramount, the appeal process should be allowed to run its course and make a final determination. Justice should be blind, not thwarted by political or diplomatic convenience.'
The issue has also been raised in the Scottish Parliament. The exchange between Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Tory group and First Minister Alex Salmond can be read here.]
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
O bring my terug na die ou Noordkaap
My next post on this blog (not before the evening of 14 January) will be from the tiny settlement of Middelpos in the Northern Cape, South Africa. My internet connection there is painfully slow (and cannot be upgraded) which makes trawling the internet and the blogosphere difficult. I would therefore be grateful for any references to Lockerbie-related news items that readers care to send to me. But no large attachments, please, which take an eternity to download.
Friday, 9 January 2009
Allow Lockerbie appeal to go ahead
This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:
'There are those who believe it may seem in the interests of Scotland, England and the US that there should be no further appeal.
'Think of the saving of expense, think of the avoidance of disruption to the Scottish criminal system. (...)
'Perhaps Scottish politicians are being advised that they should encourage the Libyans to persuade Mr Megrahi to abandon his appeal, with a view to immediate repatriation.
'In 2007, Tony Blair claimed to have reached a "memorandum of understanding" to allow Libyan prisoners held in the UK to be repatriated to Libya, when there were no outstanding legal issues against them in the UK. This memorandum of understanding is, we believe, to be ratified this month. It is simply not in the gift of a British Prime Minister to decide the disposal of those convicted under Scottish criminal law. That is the prerogative of Holyrood ministers.
'On April 4, 2008, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said: "Anybody connected with and convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve their sentences under Scottish jurisdiction we will defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system and uphold the international agreements that had previously been made." This latter refers to the agreement of the US, UK and Libya, that if found guilty, the accused would serve their sentences in Scotland.
Since Mr Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can be considered for repatriation, then unless the First Minister does a high-profile U-turn and appears to give in to the desires of the civil servants in Westminster, Mr Megrahi could find himself no nearer home and with no prospect of any appeal, since an abandoned one cannot be resumed.
'There is only one way to redress some of the damage caused to the reputation of Scotland's judicial system; that is to bite the bullet and allow the evidence to be re-examined in a fair appeal court. (...)'
Dr Swire is correct: an application for transfer back to Libya cannot be made while Mr Megrahi is pursuing an appeal. Any such application would require the appeal to be abandoned. A cynic, such as I, might say that that is an outcome that would be welcomed by the Crown Office and by Scottish Justice Department civil servants who, behind the scenes, may well be encouraging such an application to be made. And, as Dr Swire points out, the application might in any event be refused, if the First Minister's words are worth the paper they are written on.
If the appeal were abandoned, would that necessarily mean the end of any attempt to establish the unjustness of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi? There are two ways in which the campaign to clear Mr Megrahi's name might be continued.
(a) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could be instructed to place all of the material gathered by them for the appeal into the public domain. This would enable interested persons to see that, had the appeal not been abandoned, it would have succeeded. It might also lead to pressure for the setting up of an official enquiry into the Lockerbie affair, which would --it is to be hoped and expected -- result in Mr Megrahi’s exoneration and that of Libya.
(b) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could apply on his behalf for a royal pardon and submit in support the material gathered for the appeal. The Queen grants or refuses such a pardon on the advice of Ministers (in this case it would be the Scottish Ministers). I have no doubt that Scottish Justice Department civil servants would advise the Scottish Ministers to dismiss the application for a pardon. But it is possible that the Ministers would reject that advice, particularly if Scottish public opinion were mobilized in support of a pardon.
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's issue of The Scotsman. He points out consequences that have flowed from the decision by the United States and the United Kingdom to move the focus of the Lockerbie investigation away from Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-GC and towards Libya.]
'There are those who believe it may seem in the interests of Scotland, England and the US that there should be no further appeal.
'Think of the saving of expense, think of the avoidance of disruption to the Scottish criminal system. (...)
'Perhaps Scottish politicians are being advised that they should encourage the Libyans to persuade Mr Megrahi to abandon his appeal, with a view to immediate repatriation.
'In 2007, Tony Blair claimed to have reached a "memorandum of understanding" to allow Libyan prisoners held in the UK to be repatriated to Libya, when there were no outstanding legal issues against them in the UK. This memorandum of understanding is, we believe, to be ratified this month. It is simply not in the gift of a British Prime Minister to decide the disposal of those convicted under Scottish criminal law. That is the prerogative of Holyrood ministers.
'On April 4, 2008, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said: "Anybody connected with and convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve their sentences under Scottish jurisdiction we will defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system and uphold the international agreements that had previously been made." This latter refers to the agreement of the US, UK and Libya, that if found guilty, the accused would serve their sentences in Scotland.
Since Mr Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can be considered for repatriation, then unless the First Minister does a high-profile U-turn and appears to give in to the desires of the civil servants in Westminster, Mr Megrahi could find himself no nearer home and with no prospect of any appeal, since an abandoned one cannot be resumed.
'There is only one way to redress some of the damage caused to the reputation of Scotland's judicial system; that is to bite the bullet and allow the evidence to be re-examined in a fair appeal court. (...)'
Dr Swire is correct: an application for transfer back to Libya cannot be made while Mr Megrahi is pursuing an appeal. Any such application would require the appeal to be abandoned. A cynic, such as I, might say that that is an outcome that would be welcomed by the Crown Office and by Scottish Justice Department civil servants who, behind the scenes, may well be encouraging such an application to be made. And, as Dr Swire points out, the application might in any event be refused, if the First Minister's words are worth the paper they are written on.
If the appeal were abandoned, would that necessarily mean the end of any attempt to establish the unjustness of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi? There are two ways in which the campaign to clear Mr Megrahi's name might be continued.
(a) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could be instructed to place all of the material gathered by them for the appeal into the public domain. This would enable interested persons to see that, had the appeal not been abandoned, it would have succeeded. It might also lead to pressure for the setting up of an official enquiry into the Lockerbie affair, which would --it is to be hoped and expected -- result in Mr Megrahi’s exoneration and that of Libya.
(b) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could apply on his behalf for a royal pardon and submit in support the material gathered for the appeal. The Queen grants or refuses such a pardon on the advice of Ministers (in this case it would be the Scottish Ministers). I have no doubt that Scottish Justice Department civil servants would advise the Scottish Ministers to dismiss the application for a pardon. But it is possible that the Ministers would reject that advice, particularly if Scottish public opinion were mobilized in support of a pardon.
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's issue of The Scotsman. He points out consequences that have flowed from the decision by the United States and the United Kingdom to move the focus of the Lockerbie investigation away from Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-GC and towards Libya.]
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Diary of a vengeance foretold
Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's monumental 174-part series on OhMyNews International on the events that led up to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie came to an end on 31 December 2008. The series can be accessed here.
Saturday, 3 January 2009
US media beginning to see the light
[What follows is excerpted from a long op-ed entitled "20 Years Later, the Lockerbie Terror Attack Is Not as Solved as We Think" on the website of US News & World Report by Nathan Thrall, a well-known American writer on US politics and Middle East affairs. The full article can be read here.]
But though a chapter may have closed, the Lockerbie case is today further from resolution than it has been since the investigation began 20 years ago.
An official Scottish review body has declared that a "miscarriage of justice may have occurred" in the conviction of the Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The reviewers examined a secret document, provided to the United Kingdom by a foreign government and seen during Megrahi's trial by only the prosecution, that they said cast serious doubts on Megrahi's guilt. A new appeal of Megrahi's conviction is scheduled for this coming spring. The U.N. special observer appointed by Kofi Annan to Megrahi's trial, Hans Koechler, has declared that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted, as have the legal architect of his special trial, Prof. Robert Black, and a spokesperson for the families of the British victims, Jim Swire.
Piece by piece, the major elements of the prosecution's case are falling apart. A high-ranking Scottish police officer has said vital evidence was fabricated. One of the FBI's principal forensic experts has been discredited. The lord advocate—Scotland's chief legal officer—who initiated the Lockerbie prosecution has called the credibility of the government's primary witness into question, stating that the man was "not quite the full shilling...an apple short of a picnic." Another prosecution witness now claims, in a July 2007 sworn affidavit, to have lied about the key piece of evidence linking Libya to the bombing.So if the case against Megrahi and his government is so thin, why would Libya pay compensation to the families of Lockerbie's victims?
One answer came from Libya's prime minister. He told the BBC that his government took no responsibility for Lockerbie and had merely "bought peace," agreeing to pay compensation to the families of victims because it was the only means of ending the far more costly sanctions against his country. Saif al-Qadhafi, the Libyan leader's son and one of the regime's most prominent spokespersons, recently told CNN that Megrahi "had nothing to do with Lockerbie." When asked why his government would pay the victims of a terrorist act in which they played no role, Qadhafi responded, "There was no other way around. Because there was a resolution from the Security Council, and you have to do it. Otherwise, you will not get rid of the sanctions. It was very political. Very political."
Megrahi has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and may not live to see his second appeal. If he does live and his appeal succeeds, a new and independent international investigation—as has been called for by the U.N. observer to the Lockerbie trial—may commence. If it does, the investigators will return to the primary suspect of the first year and a half of the original investigation: a cell of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, whose bank account, according to a CIA officer involved in the investigation, received a transfer of $11 million two days after Lockerbie and whose leaders the investigators believed had been contracted by Iran to avenge America's inadvertent shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner carrying 290 passengers and crew.
Yet the more likely outcome is that Megrahi will die just before or after his second appeal and that with the closure of his death, like that of Libya's payments, most will forget that the Lockerbie case remains unsolved.
But though a chapter may have closed, the Lockerbie case is today further from resolution than it has been since the investigation began 20 years ago.
An official Scottish review body has declared that a "miscarriage of justice may have occurred" in the conviction of the Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The reviewers examined a secret document, provided to the United Kingdom by a foreign government and seen during Megrahi's trial by only the prosecution, that they said cast serious doubts on Megrahi's guilt. A new appeal of Megrahi's conviction is scheduled for this coming spring. The U.N. special observer appointed by Kofi Annan to Megrahi's trial, Hans Koechler, has declared that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted, as have the legal architect of his special trial, Prof. Robert Black, and a spokesperson for the families of the British victims, Jim Swire.
Piece by piece, the major elements of the prosecution's case are falling apart. A high-ranking Scottish police officer has said vital evidence was fabricated. One of the FBI's principal forensic experts has been discredited. The lord advocate—Scotland's chief legal officer—who initiated the Lockerbie prosecution has called the credibility of the government's primary witness into question, stating that the man was "not quite the full shilling...an apple short of a picnic." Another prosecution witness now claims, in a July 2007 sworn affidavit, to have lied about the key piece of evidence linking Libya to the bombing.So if the case against Megrahi and his government is so thin, why would Libya pay compensation to the families of Lockerbie's victims?
One answer came from Libya's prime minister. He told the BBC that his government took no responsibility for Lockerbie and had merely "bought peace," agreeing to pay compensation to the families of victims because it was the only means of ending the far more costly sanctions against his country. Saif al-Qadhafi, the Libyan leader's son and one of the regime's most prominent spokespersons, recently told CNN that Megrahi "had nothing to do with Lockerbie." When asked why his government would pay the victims of a terrorist act in which they played no role, Qadhafi responded, "There was no other way around. Because there was a resolution from the Security Council, and you have to do it. Otherwise, you will not get rid of the sanctions. It was very political. Very political."
Megrahi has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and may not live to see his second appeal. If he does live and his appeal succeeds, a new and independent international investigation—as has been called for by the U.N. observer to the Lockerbie trial—may commence. If it does, the investigators will return to the primary suspect of the first year and a half of the original investigation: a cell of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, whose bank account, according to a CIA officer involved in the investigation, received a transfer of $11 million two days after Lockerbie and whose leaders the investigators believed had been contracted by Iran to avenge America's inadvertent shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner carrying 290 passengers and crew.
Yet the more likely outcome is that Megrahi will die just before or after his second appeal and that with the closure of his death, like that of Libya's payments, most will forget that the Lockerbie case remains unsolved.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Lockerbie Trial is an Historic Miscarriage of Justice
This is the headline over another article by Hugh Miles, this time on The Cutting Edge website. It reads in part:
'Since the British Crown never had much of a case against Megrahi, it was no surprise when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.
'For 11 years, while legal proceedings were pending and throughout the trial, the British Government argued that a public inquiry into Lockerbie was not appropriate as it would prejudice legal proceedings. After the conviction, it switched tack, arguing instead that no public inquiry was necessary. But if the conviction were overturned, there would no longer be a reason to hold back. For Megrahi, this cannot come soon enough. In September, he was diagnosed with advanced terminal prostate cancer.
'The British Government is preparing for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya for the rest of his sentence. This would eliminate the risk of an acquittal and lessen the chance of a subsequent inquiry. Applications for a transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, which for the Government raises the convenient prospect that Megrahi will abandon his appeal so he can die at home. But letting Megrahi die a condemned man reduces the chance of Scottish prosecutors, the police, various British intelligence services plus many American and other foreign bodies being asked a lot of difficult questions. In November 2008, a general agreement on the exchange of prisoners was signed between Libya and Britain paving the way for such a transfer. The agreement will be ratified in January 2009.
'"The Crown and the prosecution are using every delaying tactic in the book to close off every route available to Megrahi except prisoner transfer, as this means he has to abandon his appeal," commented Professor Robert Black Q.C., the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial who feels partly responsible for the miscarriage that occurred. "It is an absolute disgrace. It was June 27, 2007 when the SCCRC released its report and sent its case back to the criminal appeal court, and here we are 18 months later and the Crown has still not handed over all of the material that the law requires it to hand over and it is still making every objection conceivable."'
The full text can be read here.
'Since the British Crown never had much of a case against Megrahi, it was no surprise when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.
'For 11 years, while legal proceedings were pending and throughout the trial, the British Government argued that a public inquiry into Lockerbie was not appropriate as it would prejudice legal proceedings. After the conviction, it switched tack, arguing instead that no public inquiry was necessary. But if the conviction were overturned, there would no longer be a reason to hold back. For Megrahi, this cannot come soon enough. In September, he was diagnosed with advanced terminal prostate cancer.
'The British Government is preparing for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya for the rest of his sentence. This would eliminate the risk of an acquittal and lessen the chance of a subsequent inquiry. Applications for a transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, which for the Government raises the convenient prospect that Megrahi will abandon his appeal so he can die at home. But letting Megrahi die a condemned man reduces the chance of Scottish prosecutors, the police, various British intelligence services plus many American and other foreign bodies being asked a lot of difficult questions. In November 2008, a general agreement on the exchange of prisoners was signed between Libya and Britain paving the way for such a transfer. The agreement will be ratified in January 2009.
'"The Crown and the prosecution are using every delaying tactic in the book to close off every route available to Megrahi except prisoner transfer, as this means he has to abandon his appeal," commented Professor Robert Black Q.C., the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial who feels partly responsible for the miscarriage that occurred. "It is an absolute disgrace. It was June 27, 2007 when the SCCRC released its report and sent its case back to the criminal appeal court, and here we are 18 months later and the Crown has still not handed over all of the material that the law requires it to hand over and it is still making every objection conceivable."'
The full text can be read here.
Lord Fraser's folly
This is the heading over a letter from David J Black (no relation) in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:
'Putting aside the fact that Lord Fraser is not, to the best of my knowledge, a qualified clinician, and so cannot possibly pronounce on the matter of whether a bereaved parent may, or may not, be exhibiting the characteristics of so-called "Stockholm syndrome" 20 years after the murder of a beloved daughter, some fundamental issues must surely arise about Lord Fraser's own motives and methods.
'It would appear that he is in receipt of information concerning Mr Al Megrahi's state of health, including a prognosis which indicates that he is expected to die in a few years, rather than a few months. It would be helpful to know who provided such sensitive information to him, since even a detained foreign national in this country has the right to expect a measure of confidentiality as far as his medical records are concerned, except where a court decides that some disclosure may be essential during legal proceedings.
'Some of us might have reason to consider Lord Fraser's comments in a wider perspective. As an invited witness at the Fraser inquiry into the catastrophic Holyrood building project, I was far from alone in being underwhelmed when his "no-one is to blame" report was published in 2004. Lord Fraser today suggests Dr Swire is "too close" to the Lockerbie disaster to have an objective opinion, and thus the "Stockholm syndrome" label is applied as an instrument of denigration. However, it seems to me that it was Lord Fraser who exhibited all the classic symptoms of that particular malaise as a result of being "too close" to those within the UK establishment who sought to minimise their exposure to the Holyrood scandal.
'Lord Fraser should be obliged to send a personal letter of apology to Dr Swire. This is unlikely to happen, of course. So much for the season of goodwill.'
'Putting aside the fact that Lord Fraser is not, to the best of my knowledge, a qualified clinician, and so cannot possibly pronounce on the matter of whether a bereaved parent may, or may not, be exhibiting the characteristics of so-called "Stockholm syndrome" 20 years after the murder of a beloved daughter, some fundamental issues must surely arise about Lord Fraser's own motives and methods.
'It would appear that he is in receipt of information concerning Mr Al Megrahi's state of health, including a prognosis which indicates that he is expected to die in a few years, rather than a few months. It would be helpful to know who provided such sensitive information to him, since even a detained foreign national in this country has the right to expect a measure of confidentiality as far as his medical records are concerned, except where a court decides that some disclosure may be essential during legal proceedings.
'Some of us might have reason to consider Lord Fraser's comments in a wider perspective. As an invited witness at the Fraser inquiry into the catastrophic Holyrood building project, I was far from alone in being underwhelmed when his "no-one is to blame" report was published in 2004. Lord Fraser today suggests Dr Swire is "too close" to the Lockerbie disaster to have an objective opinion, and thus the "Stockholm syndrome" label is applied as an instrument of denigration. However, it seems to me that it was Lord Fraser who exhibited all the classic symptoms of that particular malaise as a result of being "too close" to those within the UK establishment who sought to minimise their exposure to the Holyrood scandal.
'Lord Fraser should be obliged to send a personal letter of apology to Dr Swire. This is unlikely to happen, of course. So much for the season of goodwill.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)