It is the worst of outcomes: shoddy, underhand, secretive, unexplained. That the Lockerbie atrocity — with its savage death toll and the 21 years of suffering that followed — should conclude with this hole-and-corner deal is frankly shameful. A convicted terrorist is allowed to return to his country, while the relatives and friends of those who died are deprived of their last slender chance of learning the truth about what happened.
There are already too many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. Now, we are burdened with what looks suspiciously like a cover-up. By withdrawing his appeal, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has left the whole issue of his involvement in the attack unexplained — a black hole of charge and counter-charge that will never be tested in court. (...)
The Scottish government ... has argued all along that its motivation has been a humanitarian one — that allowing al-Megrahi home to die is the act of a compassionate administration, and that it would be insensitive to ignore the pleas of his family, and allow him to die in prison.
That position could only be sustained if, at the same time, it was able to assure the relatives and friends of the victims that the appeal would carry on in his absence, and that the strength of the case against him would be tested in court.
That fiction has now evaporated. The appeal is being dropped, and the Justice Secretary is looking ham-fisted, duped possibly by the Libyans, or worse, complicit with them in a deal where they get their man back, and he is saved the embarrassment of an appeal that might have gone in the Libyan’s favour. For this is the simple outcome: most people who have followed the Lockerbie affair will be convinced that a deal has been struck to avoid the embarrassment of a final appeal. Either it would have upheld al-Megrahi’s conviction, or exposed the fragility of the prosecution case, exposing the Scottish judicial system to ridicule. In both cases political face would be lost.
This, after all, was the highest profile case Scottish judges have ever heard. Its status — in a Scottish court, but on foreign soil — was unprecedented. It rested on one foundation — the unimpeachable reliability of the Scottish legal system.
That reliability was challenged almost from the moment al-Megrahi was convicted and sentenced. Campaigners on his behalf began to unpick central aspects of the prosecution case and — though the wilder conspiracy theories were dismissed — there was still doubt about the scientific trail on which the case rested.
All that, however, was to be addressed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which not only allowed a fresh appeal, but indicated that the defence would be permitted wider grounds for advancing new evidence than normal. It was, in short, the vindication of the Scottish judicial system, and most observers expected it to dispose of the principal doubts in the case. Now that opportunity is gone.
The coincidence of the Justice Minister’s decision to consider releasing al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, together with the almost immediate announcement that he was dropping his appeal, is too close for comfort. It will convince sceptics that the prosecution case was falling apart, and had to be abandoned.
It will play into the hands of those who believe this is a stitch-up. And it will expose the Scottish government to charges of duplicity or naivete. For the relatives of the victims it is a betrayal. For anyone who believes in the reliability of the legal system it is a let-down. And for those attempting to shore up trust in government it is simply a farce.
[From an article in The Times by the newspaper's columnist and Scottish Editor, Magnus Linklater. The full text can be read here.]
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Friday, 14 August 2009
Claims of Lockerbie cover-up as only man convicted of bombing drops appeal
Relatives of Lockerbie victims were denied their final chance of discovering the truth yesterday when the only man convicted of the atrocity abruptly dropped his appeal.
The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.
Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, said: “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.”
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who was one of the architects of al-Megrahi’s trial before a special Scottish court in the Netherlands, said: “There would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end . . . I’m convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance. Legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard.” (...)
The Libyan’s decision to drop his appeal gives Mr MacAskill the slightly less controversial option of transferring him to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement that Britain and Libya finalised in April. Such transfers cannot take place until all legal proceedings have ended.
Either way the Obama Administration will be angered, and the victims’ relatives will be deprived of an appeal that they saw as their last chance, short of the independent public inquiry that they have long demanded, of finding out who really killed their sons, daughter, spouses and parents when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988.
They and other experts have long doubted the evidence used to convict al-Megrahi and asked how a single man could have carried out such a deadly attack. They have questioned whether Syria or Iran was really responsible. (...)
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother died in the bombing, said she felt “great disappointment . . . At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it.”
Martin Cadman, of Burnham Market in Norfolk, who lost his son, said: “If this means that this is the end of the story then I’m very disappointed. It’s been nearly 21 years since the event and where are we? Nowhere.”
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.
But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.
Ms Grahame, a backbench member of Mr Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party, had visited al-Megrahi in prison and said he was desperate to clear his name. She claimed to have seen a leaked e-mail from the Scottish justice department showing that senior officials were pressing him to drop his appeal.
Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long proclaimed al-Megrahi’s innocence, said: “If he abandons his appeal, it means that Lockerbie will be one of those mysteries like the assassination of President Kennedy that will remain unsolved for a long time — possibly forever.”
He added: “It would come as a mighty relief to officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to certain officials in the stratosphere of Whitehall, and above all to officials in Washington.”
[The above are excerpts from a report in The Times. The full text can be read here.]
The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.
Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, said: “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.”
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who was one of the architects of al-Megrahi’s trial before a special Scottish court in the Netherlands, said: “There would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end . . . I’m convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance. Legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard.” (...)
The Libyan’s decision to drop his appeal gives Mr MacAskill the slightly less controversial option of transferring him to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement that Britain and Libya finalised in April. Such transfers cannot take place until all legal proceedings have ended.
Either way the Obama Administration will be angered, and the victims’ relatives will be deprived of an appeal that they saw as their last chance, short of the independent public inquiry that they have long demanded, of finding out who really killed their sons, daughter, spouses and parents when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988.
They and other experts have long doubted the evidence used to convict al-Megrahi and asked how a single man could have carried out such a deadly attack. They have questioned whether Syria or Iran was really responsible. (...)
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother died in the bombing, said she felt “great disappointment . . . At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it.”
Martin Cadman, of Burnham Market in Norfolk, who lost his son, said: “If this means that this is the end of the story then I’m very disappointed. It’s been nearly 21 years since the event and where are we? Nowhere.”
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.
But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.
Ms Grahame, a backbench member of Mr Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party, had visited al-Megrahi in prison and said he was desperate to clear his name. She claimed to have seen a leaked e-mail from the Scottish justice department showing that senior officials were pressing him to drop his appeal.
Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long proclaimed al-Megrahi’s innocence, said: “If he abandons his appeal, it means that Lockerbie will be one of those mysteries like the assassination of President Kennedy that will remain unsolved for a long time — possibly forever.”
He added: “It would come as a mighty relief to officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to certain officials in the stratosphere of Whitehall, and above all to officials in Washington.”
[The above are excerpts from a report in The Times. The full text can be read here.]
Hillary Clinton calls Kenny MacAskill
QUESTION: Is there anything new on Lockerbie? Can you bring us up to date on what efforts the U.S. is making and its views expressed --
MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, we continue to talk to Scottish authorities about this particular case. Secretary Clinton, in the past day, talked to Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and expressed strongly the United States view that Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part on the bombing of the Pan Am 103 flight.
QUESTION: Just the one call to the justice minister?
MR. CROWLEY: I believe that in the past few days, also the Attorney General has called the same individual.
[From today's US State Department daily press briefing by Philip J Crowley. The full transcript can be read here.]
MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, we continue to talk to Scottish authorities about this particular case. Secretary Clinton, in the past day, talked to Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and expressed strongly the United States view that Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part on the bombing of the Pan Am 103 flight.
QUESTION: Just the one call to the justice minister?
MR. CROWLEY: I believe that in the past few days, also the Attorney General has called the same individual.
[From today's US State Department daily press briefing by Philip J Crowley. The full transcript can be read here.]
The decision to abandon
It is sad that Abdelbaset Megrahi has felt it necessary to abandon his appeal.
The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally denied that any suggestion has ever been made by any official of the Justice Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department to Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal.
Why, if this is true, did he decide to do it?
It may be that Mr Megrahi wished to keep open the option of prisoner transfer, or believes that this may be a more attractive proposition to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Prisoner transfer does require that there be no ongoing legal proceedings and could not be granted until Mr Megrahi’s appeal (and, incidentally, the Crown’s separate appeal regarding the length of the punishment part of his life sentence) had been terminated one way or another.
Or it may be that Mr Megrahi quite independently formed the view that his prospects of being released on compassionate grounds would be maximized by voluntarily abandoning his appeal, and had reached a stage where his desire to return to his homeland to die was so overwhelming that he was prepared to adopt an otherwise unpalatable course of action.
Or could there have been some “deal” between governments which involved abandonment of the appeal as one of its terms? A Libyan official quoted in The Times of Malta has recently referred to a deal or agreement. If there has been any intergovernmental agreement regarding Megrahi’s repatriation, it would be interesting to find out just what it says. But that, of course, is never likely to happen.
Interestingly, Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland's political editor, has posted a delightfully cynical commentary on his blog Blether with Brian. It starts:
'Not sure if, like me, you are a fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
'In one, Holmes' trusty associate Dr Watson asserts that one event, following hard upon another, represents "an amazing coincidence."
'Holmes replies: "The odds are enormous against its being coincidence. No figures could express them. No, my dear Watson, the two events are connected - MUST be connected. It is for us to find the connection."
'A comparable task confronts those who are trying to understand, fully, the apparent endgame which is under way with regard to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
'Item: Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is actively considering whether to return Megrahi to Libya, either on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer scheme.
'Item: Megrahi's lawyers announce that he is seeking leave of the court to abandon his appeal against conviction, the second such appeal he has lodged.
'We are asked by the Scottish Government to accept that these two incidents are entirely unrelated.
'I refer, my honourable friend, to the reply given earlier by Mr S. Holmes of 221b Baker Street, London.'
The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally denied that any suggestion has ever been made by any official of the Justice Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department to Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal.
Why, if this is true, did he decide to do it?
It may be that Mr Megrahi wished to keep open the option of prisoner transfer, or believes that this may be a more attractive proposition to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Prisoner transfer does require that there be no ongoing legal proceedings and could not be granted until Mr Megrahi’s appeal (and, incidentally, the Crown’s separate appeal regarding the length of the punishment part of his life sentence) had been terminated one way or another.
Or it may be that Mr Megrahi quite independently formed the view that his prospects of being released on compassionate grounds would be maximized by voluntarily abandoning his appeal, and had reached a stage where his desire to return to his homeland to die was so overwhelming that he was prepared to adopt an otherwise unpalatable course of action.
Or could there have been some “deal” between governments which involved abandonment of the appeal as one of its terms? A Libyan official quoted in The Times of Malta has recently referred to a deal or agreement. If there has been any intergovernmental agreement regarding Megrahi’s repatriation, it would be interesting to find out just what it says. But that, of course, is never likely to happen.
Interestingly, Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland's political editor, has posted a delightfully cynical commentary on his blog Blether with Brian. It starts:
'Not sure if, like me, you are a fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
'In one, Holmes' trusty associate Dr Watson asserts that one event, following hard upon another, represents "an amazing coincidence."
'Holmes replies: "The odds are enormous against its being coincidence. No figures could express them. No, my dear Watson, the two events are connected - MUST be connected. It is for us to find the connection."
'A comparable task confronts those who are trying to understand, fully, the apparent endgame which is under way with regard to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
'Item: Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is actively considering whether to return Megrahi to Libya, either on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer scheme.
'Item: Megrahi's lawyers announce that he is seeking leave of the court to abandon his appeal against conviction, the second such appeal he has lodged.
'We are asked by the Scottish Government to accept that these two incidents are entirely unrelated.
'I refer, my honourable friend, to the reply given earlier by Mr S. Holmes of 221b Baker Street, London.'
Reaction from Christine Grahame MSP
Responding to the news that Libyan Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi has dropped his appeal SNP MSP Christine Grahame, who met several times with Megrahi in Greenock prison said:
“I believe that Mr Megrahi has come under pressure from certain quarters to drop his appeal. I know from the lengthy discussions I had with him that he was desperate to clear his name, so I believe that the decision is not entirely his own.
“There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie. Some serious scrutiny will be required to determine exactly why Mr Megrahi is now dropping his appeal and examination of what pressure he has come under.
“A leaked email that I saw this week from an official in the Scottish Justice Department warned that senior Scottish officials were exerting undue pressure to have Megrahi drop his appeal. They appear to have been successful.
“Myself and other campaigners are however determined to fight on to get to the truth behind Lockerbie. The only proper course now is for a full public inquiry and I would restate my call for such an inquiry to be established at the earliest opportunity.
“In the next days, weeks and months new information will be placed in the public domain that will make it clear that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103.”
“I believe that Mr Megrahi has come under pressure from certain quarters to drop his appeal. I know from the lengthy discussions I had with him that he was desperate to clear his name, so I believe that the decision is not entirely his own.
“There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie. Some serious scrutiny will be required to determine exactly why Mr Megrahi is now dropping his appeal and examination of what pressure he has come under.
“A leaked email that I saw this week from an official in the Scottish Justice Department warned that senior Scottish officials were exerting undue pressure to have Megrahi drop his appeal. They appear to have been successful.
“Myself and other campaigners are however determined to fight on to get to the truth behind Lockerbie. The only proper course now is for a full public inquiry and I would restate my call for such an inquiry to be established at the earliest opportunity.
“In the next days, weeks and months new information will be placed in the public domain that will make it clear that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103.”
Abandonment of appeal
[What follows is the text of a press release from Abdelbaset Megrahi's solicitors.]
Since his diagnosis with inoperable prostate cancer in autumn 2008 Mr Megrahi's health has deteriorated. His condition has taken a significant turn for the worse in recent weeks.
Mr Al Megrahi can confirm that on 12th August he applied to the High Court of Justiciary to abandon his appeal against conviction under section 116 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
As the appeal hearing has commenced, and the court seized of the matter, leave of the court is required before the appeal can be formally abandoned.
Notes for Editors
In May 2009 the Libyan Government applied for Mr Al Megrahi to be transferred back to Libya under and in terms of a prisoner transfer treaty negotiated between the UK and Libya.
Last month Mr Al Megrahi made a separate application to the Scottish Justice Secretary to be released on compassionate grounds.
Press release from the Scottish Court Service:
A procedural hearing will take place at 10.00am on Tuesday 18th August 2009 to consider a Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of the appellant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The hearing will be held in Court 3 at the Lawnmarket Building of the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mr. Megrahi will not be present in court.
Press release from the Scottish Government:
In relation to the Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi to be heard in the High Court next Tuesday (August 18), a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"This is entirely a matter for the court, Mr Al Megrahi and his legal team. The Justice Secretary is continuing his considerations of both the applications before him, one under the UK-Libyan Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA), and the other on compassionate grounds. He expects to make a decision soon."
Having no criminal proceedings pending is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a PTA application, but an application for compassionate release depends on entirely different criteria.
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libya states at Article 3(b) that a condition for transfer is that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State".
Statement by the First Minister:
First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish Government had not put any pressure on the Libyan to drop his second appeal.
Speaking in Edinburgh before Megrahi's application to drop his appeal was announced, he said: "We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals, why on earth should we?
"That's not our position - never has been."
He added: "Nothing that the Scottish Government has done or said suggests pressure on anybody to do anything."
He also said the issue would not be discussed at cabinet on Tuesday, saying it was a judicial matter, not a political one.
"This is a matter the justice secretary must determine and he must do it purely on judicial grounds, which is what he's been doing," he said.
[As reported on the BBC News website.]
Since his diagnosis with inoperable prostate cancer in autumn 2008 Mr Megrahi's health has deteriorated. His condition has taken a significant turn for the worse in recent weeks.
Mr Al Megrahi can confirm that on 12th August he applied to the High Court of Justiciary to abandon his appeal against conviction under section 116 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
As the appeal hearing has commenced, and the court seized of the matter, leave of the court is required before the appeal can be formally abandoned.
Notes for Editors
In May 2009 the Libyan Government applied for Mr Al Megrahi to be transferred back to Libya under and in terms of a prisoner transfer treaty negotiated between the UK and Libya.
Last month Mr Al Megrahi made a separate application to the Scottish Justice Secretary to be released on compassionate grounds.
Press release from the Scottish Court Service:
A procedural hearing will take place at 10.00am on Tuesday 18th August 2009 to consider a Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of the appellant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The hearing will be held in Court 3 at the Lawnmarket Building of the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mr. Megrahi will not be present in court.
Press release from the Scottish Government:
In relation to the Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi to be heard in the High Court next Tuesday (August 18), a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"This is entirely a matter for the court, Mr Al Megrahi and his legal team. The Justice Secretary is continuing his considerations of both the applications before him, one under the UK-Libyan Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA), and the other on compassionate grounds. He expects to make a decision soon."
Having no criminal proceedings pending is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a PTA application, but an application for compassionate release depends on entirely different criteria.
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libya states at Article 3(b) that a condition for transfer is that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State".
Statement by the First Minister:
First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish Government had not put any pressure on the Libyan to drop his second appeal.
Speaking in Edinburgh before Megrahi's application to drop his appeal was announced, he said: "We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals, why on earth should we?
"That's not our position - never has been."
He added: "Nothing that the Scottish Government has done or said suggests pressure on anybody to do anything."
He also said the issue would not be discussed at cabinet on Tuesday, saying it was a judicial matter, not a political one.
"This is a matter the justice secretary must determine and he must do it purely on judicial grounds, which is what he's been doing," he said.
[As reported on the BBC News website.]
Government and intelligence services influence on media coverage of Lockerbie
[The following are excerpts from an exclusive article just published on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Magnus Linklater, the editor of the Scotsman newspaper at the time of the Lockerbie investigation, has revealed that UK Government and intelligence services influenced coverage of the Lockerbie inquiry to implicate Iran and Syria.
Linklater admitted that both the police and UK Government ministers directed the newspaper to concentrate their coverage on Iranian and Syrian links with the downing of Pan Am 103, the suspects initially favoured by the US and UK administrations.
"This is not just conspiracy theory," Linklater said.
"It is sometimes forgotten just how powerful the evidence was, in the first few months after Lockerbie, that pointed towards the involvement of the Palestinian-Syrian terror group the PFLP-GC, backed by Iran and linked closely to terror groups in Europe. At The Scotsman newspaper, which I edited then, we were strongly briefed by police and ministers to concentrate on this link, with revenge for an American rocket attack on an Iranian airliner as the motive."
This line of inquiry was heavily promoted by the US and UK Governments for two years until the invasion of Kuwait, when the coincidental requirement to use Iranian airpsace to bomb Iraq became a priority. Libya was then identified as the prime suspect.
The involvement of Iran and Syria has been promoted consistently as an alternate explanation for the Lockerbie event, and PFLP-GC group member Mohamed Abu Talb was named by the two accused, Megrahi and Fhimah, in their special defence of incrimination. However, only three of the hundreds of listed defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, and this avenue of inquiry was never explored in a judicial forum. (...)
The lack of evidence in the circumstancial case against Megrahi and Fhimah has been the focus of much of the criticism of the judgement against Megrahi. Material submitted to the trial as semtex explosives evidence had in fact been found to have been manufactured from test explosions.
Linklater does not disclose why the newspaper did not undertake its own investigations. However he did state how former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser expressed concerns to him about whether the CIA could have been involved in planting some of the "evidence".
"I don’t know. No one ever came to me and said, ‘Let’s go for the Libyans’, it was never as straightforward as that. The CIA was extremely subtle," Fraser is reported to have said.
[An article on the issue by Mr Linklater appears in today's edition of The Times. He is currently the newspaper's Scottish Editor.]
Magnus Linklater, the editor of the Scotsman newspaper at the time of the Lockerbie investigation, has revealed that UK Government and intelligence services influenced coverage of the Lockerbie inquiry to implicate Iran and Syria.
Linklater admitted that both the police and UK Government ministers directed the newspaper to concentrate their coverage on Iranian and Syrian links with the downing of Pan Am 103, the suspects initially favoured by the US and UK administrations.
"This is not just conspiracy theory," Linklater said.
"It is sometimes forgotten just how powerful the evidence was, in the first few months after Lockerbie, that pointed towards the involvement of the Palestinian-Syrian terror group the PFLP-GC, backed by Iran and linked closely to terror groups in Europe. At The Scotsman newspaper, which I edited then, we were strongly briefed by police and ministers to concentrate on this link, with revenge for an American rocket attack on an Iranian airliner as the motive."
This line of inquiry was heavily promoted by the US and UK Governments for two years until the invasion of Kuwait, when the coincidental requirement to use Iranian airpsace to bomb Iraq became a priority. Libya was then identified as the prime suspect.
The involvement of Iran and Syria has been promoted consistently as an alternate explanation for the Lockerbie event, and PFLP-GC group member Mohamed Abu Talb was named by the two accused, Megrahi and Fhimah, in their special defence of incrimination. However, only three of the hundreds of listed defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, and this avenue of inquiry was never explored in a judicial forum. (...)
The lack of evidence in the circumstancial case against Megrahi and Fhimah has been the focus of much of the criticism of the judgement against Megrahi. Material submitted to the trial as semtex explosives evidence had in fact been found to have been manufactured from test explosions.
Linklater does not disclose why the newspaper did not undertake its own investigations. However he did state how former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser expressed concerns to him about whether the CIA could have been involved in planting some of the "evidence".
"I don’t know. No one ever came to me and said, ‘Let’s go for the Libyans’, it was never as straightforward as that. The CIA was extremely subtle," Fraser is reported to have said.
[An article on the issue by Mr Linklater appears in today's edition of The Times. He is currently the newspaper's Scottish Editor.]
Is the appeal about to be abandoned?
[Lucy Adams, chief reporter of The Herald is confident that it is. Here is what she says in an article in today's issue of the newspaper:]
Relatives and campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie saga after it emerged the appeal by the man convicted of the bombing is expected to be dropped within days. (...)
British relatives, however, who broadly welcome the Libyan's release on compassionate grounds, have raised fears that the Scottish justice system's role will never be properly scrutinised without an inquiry if his appeal is dropped.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, last night said he was extremely concerned about rumours that the Scottish Government had suggested to Megrahi that he drop the appeal if he wants to go home. Mr Swire said that if he could, he would continue the appeal himself.
"When I went to see Gaddafi to persuade him to agree to Zeist, I told him the Scottish justice system was the best in the world. Since then I have been proven completely wrong.
"The speed of the appeal has been decidedly glacial and we have barely scratched the surface. A public inquiry is absolutely necessary to investigate the many concerns that have arisen. I don't believe he is guilty, but even those who do should recognise that two wrongs don't make a right."
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Zeist, said: "I just don't understand why he is dropping the appeal now.
"If the appeal is to be dropped then the next step is to press for a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has not closed the door on this and in the past have implied that they are not necessarily opposed to it. Once the appeal is dropped this is really the only avenue available for people to get questions and issues into the public domain."
Officials have vehemently denied rumours about the appeal but questions have been raised about why proceedings are to be halted, as it is possible to be released early on "compassionate" grounds while legal proceedings are active.
The Scottish Government is insisting that no decision has yet been taken to free Megrahi, but The Herald understands he will go home before Ramadan starts on August 21.
Legal papers are expected to be lodged with the court of criminal appeal in the next few days to say the appeal is to be dropped.
A Libyan official in Tripoli yesterday said a deal was "in the last steps", but stressed both sides had agreed to keep quiet until Megrahi was back in Libya.
[Note by RB: There is no way under Scottish criminal procedure by which Dr Swire could continue the appeal if Abdelbaset Megrahi instructs it to be abandoned. If Mr Megrahi died while the appeal was still proceeding, then any person with a legitimate interest could apply to the court to be allowed to continue it. This is normally a close relative of the deceased appellant, but it is just possible that the court might recognise a close relative of a murder victim as having such a legitimate interest. But if the appellant himself abandons his appeal, there is no mechanism for allowing a third party to take it over.
In a further thoughtful and important article in The Herald entitled "Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion?" Lucy Adams looks at the implications of compassionate release for a series of interested parties.
The Scotsman has an article which asserts that the Justice Secretary's decision will be announce in four days' time. The relevant portion reads:
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims are expected to learn as early as Tuesday whether the only man convicted of the terrorist atrocity will be freed.
'Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is understood to be finalising a decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is in the late stages of cancer.
'It is believed Mr MacAskill will confirm this conclusion when the Scottish Government cabinet meets on Tuesday and a decision may be announced that evening or the following day.']
Relatives and campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie saga after it emerged the appeal by the man convicted of the bombing is expected to be dropped within days. (...)
British relatives, however, who broadly welcome the Libyan's release on compassionate grounds, have raised fears that the Scottish justice system's role will never be properly scrutinised without an inquiry if his appeal is dropped.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, last night said he was extremely concerned about rumours that the Scottish Government had suggested to Megrahi that he drop the appeal if he wants to go home. Mr Swire said that if he could, he would continue the appeal himself.
"When I went to see Gaddafi to persuade him to agree to Zeist, I told him the Scottish justice system was the best in the world. Since then I have been proven completely wrong.
"The speed of the appeal has been decidedly glacial and we have barely scratched the surface. A public inquiry is absolutely necessary to investigate the many concerns that have arisen. I don't believe he is guilty, but even those who do should recognise that two wrongs don't make a right."
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Zeist, said: "I just don't understand why he is dropping the appeal now.
"If the appeal is to be dropped then the next step is to press for a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has not closed the door on this and in the past have implied that they are not necessarily opposed to it. Once the appeal is dropped this is really the only avenue available for people to get questions and issues into the public domain."
Officials have vehemently denied rumours about the appeal but questions have been raised about why proceedings are to be halted, as it is possible to be released early on "compassionate" grounds while legal proceedings are active.
The Scottish Government is insisting that no decision has yet been taken to free Megrahi, but The Herald understands he will go home before Ramadan starts on August 21.
Legal papers are expected to be lodged with the court of criminal appeal in the next few days to say the appeal is to be dropped.
A Libyan official in Tripoli yesterday said a deal was "in the last steps", but stressed both sides had agreed to keep quiet until Megrahi was back in Libya.
[Note by RB: There is no way under Scottish criminal procedure by which Dr Swire could continue the appeal if Abdelbaset Megrahi instructs it to be abandoned. If Mr Megrahi died while the appeal was still proceeding, then any person with a legitimate interest could apply to the court to be allowed to continue it. This is normally a close relative of the deceased appellant, but it is just possible that the court might recognise a close relative of a murder victim as having such a legitimate interest. But if the appellant himself abandons his appeal, there is no mechanism for allowing a third party to take it over.
In a further thoughtful and important article in The Herald entitled "Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion?" Lucy Adams looks at the implications of compassionate release for a series of interested parties.
The Scotsman has an article which asserts that the Justice Secretary's decision will be announce in four days' time. The relevant portion reads:
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims are expected to learn as early as Tuesday whether the only man convicted of the terrorist atrocity will be freed.
'Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is understood to be finalising a decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is in the late stages of cancer.
'It is believed Mr MacAskill will confirm this conclusion when the Scottish Government cabinet meets on Tuesday and a decision may be announced that evening or the following day.']
Come clean over this miscarriage of justice
[This is the headline over a leader in today's edition of The Independent. It reads as follows:]
Expectations are growing that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of perpetrating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, will be permitted to return to Libya next week.
Al-Megrahi was diagnosed last year with terminal prostate cancer. The Scottish Government seems to have bowed to pressure from Tripoli for him to be allowed to return home to Libya to die. It is not yet clear whether this release will be authorised on compassionate grounds, or whether it will be a formal prisoner transfer. Either way, allowing al-Megrahi to return home is the right decision.
The response from the relatives of those 270 civilians who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has been divided. Dr Jim Swire, the unofficial spokesman of the British families whose relatives died when the plane crashed to the ground over the small Scottish town, yesterday welcomed the prospect of al-Megrahi's release. But the US families of those who died on the flight have expressed their anger about the move, with several accusing the UK and US governments of putting their desire to maintain good relations with Libya ahead of concerns about justice. The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has been pushing hard for al-Megrahi's transfer, is without doubt a repellent figure. For more than four decades he has locked up opponents, murdered dissenters and even sponsored terrorist attacks abroad. There is also something distasteful about the haste with which Western governments have rushed to embrace him since Libya agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme in 2003.
Yet the fact is that this particular agreement does not look like a Western attempt to curry favour with the Libyan regime. It is doubtful whether al-Megrahi should have been convicted in the first place. Al-Megrahi is unlikely to be a saint, having worked for the Libyan intelligence services for a number of years. But the evidence linking him to the Lockerbie bombing has looked increasingly weak since his conviction in 2001.
In that trial, held in a specially convened court in the Netherlands, al-Megrahi was positively identified by a witness who, it has been alleged, was offered a $2m reward for his evidence. The Libyan's defence team was also, apparently, denied access to official government papers that were made available to Scottish police. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that the Iranian regime sponsored the bombing. One former Iranian agent has come forward to claim that it was revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by a US warship in July 1988. Taken together, all this provides serious grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice took place.
Some doubt whether we will ever discover conclusive proof of who was responsible for the mass murder in Lockerbie, arguing that too much time has passed. But it would be wrong simply to give up trying to discover what happened. Even if al-Megrahi is permitted to return to Libya to die, his appeal against his conviction should run its course. The evidence against him – and the Libyan state – must be thoroughly tested.
So much about this tragedy remains shrouded in shadow. If it cannot be dragged into the light, we should at least attempt to establish what we do not know. And if the wrong individual was convicted for this terrible crime, the authorities must not be allowed to sweep that uncomfortable fact under the carpet.
Expectations are growing that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of perpetrating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, will be permitted to return to Libya next week.
Al-Megrahi was diagnosed last year with terminal prostate cancer. The Scottish Government seems to have bowed to pressure from Tripoli for him to be allowed to return home to Libya to die. It is not yet clear whether this release will be authorised on compassionate grounds, or whether it will be a formal prisoner transfer. Either way, allowing al-Megrahi to return home is the right decision.
The response from the relatives of those 270 civilians who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has been divided. Dr Jim Swire, the unofficial spokesman of the British families whose relatives died when the plane crashed to the ground over the small Scottish town, yesterday welcomed the prospect of al-Megrahi's release. But the US families of those who died on the flight have expressed their anger about the move, with several accusing the UK and US governments of putting their desire to maintain good relations with Libya ahead of concerns about justice. The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has been pushing hard for al-Megrahi's transfer, is without doubt a repellent figure. For more than four decades he has locked up opponents, murdered dissenters and even sponsored terrorist attacks abroad. There is also something distasteful about the haste with which Western governments have rushed to embrace him since Libya agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme in 2003.
Yet the fact is that this particular agreement does not look like a Western attempt to curry favour with the Libyan regime. It is doubtful whether al-Megrahi should have been convicted in the first place. Al-Megrahi is unlikely to be a saint, having worked for the Libyan intelligence services for a number of years. But the evidence linking him to the Lockerbie bombing has looked increasingly weak since his conviction in 2001.
In that trial, held in a specially convened court in the Netherlands, al-Megrahi was positively identified by a witness who, it has been alleged, was offered a $2m reward for his evidence. The Libyan's defence team was also, apparently, denied access to official government papers that were made available to Scottish police. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that the Iranian regime sponsored the bombing. One former Iranian agent has come forward to claim that it was revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by a US warship in July 1988. Taken together, all this provides serious grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice took place.
Some doubt whether we will ever discover conclusive proof of who was responsible for the mass murder in Lockerbie, arguing that too much time has passed. But it would be wrong simply to give up trying to discover what happened. Even if al-Megrahi is permitted to return to Libya to die, his appeal against his conviction should run its course. The evidence against him – and the Libyan state – must be thoroughly tested.
So much about this tragedy remains shrouded in shadow. If it cannot be dragged into the light, we should at least attempt to establish what we do not know. And if the wrong individual was convicted for this terrible crime, the authorities must not be allowed to sweep that uncomfortable fact under the carpet.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
I was at Lockerbie: I rejoice that Megrahi is going home
[This is the headline over an article in The Herald by Canon Patrick Keegans who was parish priest in Lockerbie when Pan Am 103 fell on the town and killed eleven of his neighbours and friends in Sherwood Crescent. The following are the last six paragraphs.]
As far as we know, next week Mr Megrahi, to the relief of his wife and family, will be going home. I am rejoicing. That is the only word I can use. I would gladly help him on to the plane. I am glad that compassion still walks hand in hand with justice. As a Scot and as one so closely involved with Lockerbie, I would like to be able to thank the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, for what would be a courageous decision.
It is courageous enough to grant release on compassionate grounds but it will take even more courage to allow the appeal to continue. If the appeal is halted, then justice will be denied on several fronts. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has a right to due legal process, to clear his name. The families of Pan Am 103, if the appeal is halted, will be left with nothing. We will be left in the dark guessing at what would have been the verdict in the appeal.
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
So, I would urge all the families of Pan Am 103 to do two things: first, to respond with compassion to Mr Megrahi and his family; and, secondly, to remember the motto, "Pan Am 103: the truth must be known". Surely there has to be some mechanism by which the material in the appeal can be brought into the public domain. This is not the end of Lockerbie.
On a personal level, I say to my many friends in America who strongly disagree with my views that the compassion and love you have experienced from me and from the people of Lockerbie will always be there for you.
And, again on a personal level, I would say to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he leaves Scottish soil and returns home: "Be at peace now with God and your family."
As far as we know, next week Mr Megrahi, to the relief of his wife and family, will be going home. I am rejoicing. That is the only word I can use. I would gladly help him on to the plane. I am glad that compassion still walks hand in hand with justice. As a Scot and as one so closely involved with Lockerbie, I would like to be able to thank the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, for what would be a courageous decision.
It is courageous enough to grant release on compassionate grounds but it will take even more courage to allow the appeal to continue. If the appeal is halted, then justice will be denied on several fronts. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has a right to due legal process, to clear his name. The families of Pan Am 103, if the appeal is halted, will be left with nothing. We will be left in the dark guessing at what would have been the verdict in the appeal.
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
So, I would urge all the families of Pan Am 103 to do two things: first, to respond with compassion to Mr Megrahi and his family; and, secondly, to remember the motto, "Pan Am 103: the truth must be known". Surely there has to be some mechanism by which the material in the appeal can be brought into the public domain. This is not the end of Lockerbie.
On a personal level, I say to my many friends in America who strongly disagree with my views that the compassion and love you have experienced from me and from the people of Lockerbie will always be there for you.
And, again on a personal level, I would say to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he leaves Scottish soil and returns home: "Be at peace now with God and your family."
Lockerbie bomber set to be freed
[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Times of Malta. The following excerpts are particularly interesting for the comments of the anonymous Libyan official.]
The Scottish government is poised to officially decide to allow the former Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be released from prison and return home on compassionate grounds, according to reports.
An American lawyer who worked on the defence team of Abdel Basset al Megrahi said the Libyan, who is 57 and has terminal prostate cancer, was to be released imminently. (...)
A Libyan official in Tripoli said an agreement for Megrahi's release was "in the last steps" but added that a deal had also been struck that neither side would make any official announcement about Megrahi's release until he was on home soil. (...)
Frank Rubino, an American lawyer who previously worked on Megrahi's legal team, told Britain's Sky television that he had been told by al Megrahi's current defence team the Libyan would be allowed to go home soon.
"I am told that it will be in the very near future," he said. (...)
"The deal is now already in the last steps," the Libyan official, who did not want to be identified, said in Tripoli. "We have an agreement between the two sides not to make any statement until he (al Megrahi) comes home."
[Note by RB: I wonder if this "deal" contains a term to the effect that Mr Megrahi will abandon his appeal? The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally stated that no suggestion was ever made to Megrahi that his prospects of compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, abandonment of his appeal. But could it be that there is an "understanding" that abandonment will take place? A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man.]
The Scottish government is poised to officially decide to allow the former Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be released from prison and return home on compassionate grounds, according to reports.
An American lawyer who worked on the defence team of Abdel Basset al Megrahi said the Libyan, who is 57 and has terminal prostate cancer, was to be released imminently. (...)
A Libyan official in Tripoli said an agreement for Megrahi's release was "in the last steps" but added that a deal had also been struck that neither side would make any official announcement about Megrahi's release until he was on home soil. (...)
Frank Rubino, an American lawyer who previously worked on Megrahi's legal team, told Britain's Sky television that he had been told by al Megrahi's current defence team the Libyan would be allowed to go home soon.
"I am told that it will be in the very near future," he said. (...)
"The deal is now already in the last steps," the Libyan official, who did not want to be identified, said in Tripoli. "We have an agreement between the two sides not to make any statement until he (al Megrahi) comes home."
[Note by RB: I wonder if this "deal" contains a term to the effect that Mr Megrahi will abandon his appeal? The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally stated that no suggestion was ever made to Megrahi that his prospects of compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, abandonment of his appeal. But could it be that there is an "understanding" that abandonment will take place? A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man.]
US stands against bomber release
[This is the heading over a report on the BBC News website. The following are excerpts.]
US officials have said the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve out his sentence following reports that he could be released.
The BBC understands Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, is likely to be freed next week.
A US official told the BBC that they had no information that he was set be released on compassionate grounds.
However, he added that the American position remained that Megrahi should complete his jail term in Scotland. (...)
A US official told the BBC they had "no information to suggest that the Scottish authorities have taken any decision" to release Megrahi.
The official added: "We maintain our long-standing position that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103." (...)
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he had listened to the representations from everyone "with a legitimate interest".
"I now have to reflect," he said.
"I'm conscious that I have to do that as speedily as possible.
"Clearly he's terminally ill and there are other factors, but I have made no decision yet."
[A report on the website of The New York Times reads as follows:]
The United States spoke out Thursday against the prospect of an early release for the only person convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, after Scottish government officials confirmed that they are considering freeing him on compassionate grounds next week because he has terminal prostate cancer. The prisoner, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a 57-year-old Libyan and former intelligence agent who is serving a 27-year term in Scotland, was sentenced in 2001 for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died. The majority of the dead were Americans. A State Department spokesman, Philip Crowley, said Thursday that “we have made our views clear to the U.K. government, to other authorities, that we believe that he should spend the rest of his time in jail.” The possible release got mixed reviews from the victims’ families. Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, told Sky News that Mr. Megrahi’s release would be “a disgrace.” But Jim Swire, whose daughter died, told Sky it was “inhumane” to keep Mr. Megrahi in prison.
US officials have said the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve out his sentence following reports that he could be released.
The BBC understands Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, is likely to be freed next week.
A US official told the BBC that they had no information that he was set be released on compassionate grounds.
However, he added that the American position remained that Megrahi should complete his jail term in Scotland. (...)
A US official told the BBC they had "no information to suggest that the Scottish authorities have taken any decision" to release Megrahi.
The official added: "We maintain our long-standing position that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103." (...)
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he had listened to the representations from everyone "with a legitimate interest".
"I now have to reflect," he said.
"I'm conscious that I have to do that as speedily as possible.
"Clearly he's terminally ill and there are other factors, but I have made no decision yet."
[A report on the website of The New York Times reads as follows:]
The United States spoke out Thursday against the prospect of an early release for the only person convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, after Scottish government officials confirmed that they are considering freeing him on compassionate grounds next week because he has terminal prostate cancer. The prisoner, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a 57-year-old Libyan and former intelligence agent who is serving a 27-year term in Scotland, was sentenced in 2001 for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died. The majority of the dead were Americans. A State Department spokesman, Philip Crowley, said Thursday that “we have made our views clear to the U.K. government, to other authorities, that we believe that he should spend the rest of his time in jail.” The possible release got mixed reviews from the victims’ families. Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, told Sky News that Mr. Megrahi’s release would be “a disgrace.” But Jim Swire, whose daughter died, told Sky it was “inhumane” to keep Mr. Megrahi in prison.
From Susan Lindauer
[I have been asked by Susan Lindauer to post the following on this blog.]
I urgently request that you post the following information on your Lockerbie blog.
As the Scottish Courts study the possible release of Mr. Megrahi, the families of Pan Am 103 should be advised that without doubt, Libya gave sanctuary to at least one of the terrorists involved in that bombing.
Until 1998, LIbya gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal, who has been identified by Arab and US sources as one of the masterminds of that attack. His family and friends have confessed it, and he confessed it, too, before his death.
During negotiations for the Lockerbie [?trial?] -- which I started in New York with Libya's diplomats at the UN -- I saw documents* which prove Abu Talb and Ahmed Jibril orchestrated the attack. Abu Nidal was the third head of the hydra.
That means Libya would not be entitled to rescind its apology, or to expect any compensation for the financial damages paid to the Lockerbie families. All of that would remain intact. The only thing that would change is that an innocent man would go home to his family to die shortly. That's most crucial of all.
On those grounds, I urge the families of Pan Am 103 to accept the release of Mr. Megraghi on compassionate grounds. Send him home immediately. He is fully innocent of this crime.
[*In a further e-mail Ms Lindauer writes:]
In late 1997, I gave those documents to Gadhafi's diplomats in New York. That's what persuaded Gadahfi to go forward with talks for the handover of the two men. In back-channel talks, I assured his government that his two men would have access to witnesses and documents to prove their innocence..
That's what changed everything. It wasn't sanctions, and it wasn't appeals from the families that changed Gadhafi's mind. It was those documents.
[Note by RB: If all that Libya can be proved to have done was to provide sanctuary to one of the bombers, that would not under the law of Scotland make that country an accessory to the crime. Nor has Libya made any apology. It has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of its citizens. If Mr Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no Libyan citizen convicted of anything for which the state has accepted responsibility.]
I urgently request that you post the following information on your Lockerbie blog.
As the Scottish Courts study the possible release of Mr. Megrahi, the families of Pan Am 103 should be advised that without doubt, Libya gave sanctuary to at least one of the terrorists involved in that bombing.
Until 1998, LIbya gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal, who has been identified by Arab and US sources as one of the masterminds of that attack. His family and friends have confessed it, and he confessed it, too, before his death.
During negotiations for the Lockerbie [?trial?] -- which I started in New York with Libya's diplomats at the UN -- I saw documents* which prove Abu Talb and Ahmed Jibril orchestrated the attack. Abu Nidal was the third head of the hydra.
That means Libya would not be entitled to rescind its apology, or to expect any compensation for the financial damages paid to the Lockerbie families. All of that would remain intact. The only thing that would change is that an innocent man would go home to his family to die shortly. That's most crucial of all.
On those grounds, I urge the families of Pan Am 103 to accept the release of Mr. Megraghi on compassionate grounds. Send him home immediately. He is fully innocent of this crime.
[*In a further e-mail Ms Lindauer writes:]
In late 1997, I gave those documents to Gadhafi's diplomats in New York. That's what persuaded Gadahfi to go forward with talks for the handover of the two men. In back-channel talks, I assured his government that his two men would have access to witnesses and documents to prove their innocence..
That's what changed everything. It wasn't sanctions, and it wasn't appeals from the families that changed Gadhafi's mind. It was those documents.
[Note by RB: If all that Libya can be proved to have done was to provide sanctuary to one of the bombers, that would not under the law of Scotland make that country an accessory to the crime. Nor has Libya made any apology. It has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of its citizens. If Mr Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no Libyan citizen convicted of anything for which the state has accepted responsibility.]
Questions remain in Lockerbie case
[What follows is the text of an article on The Guardian website by Oliver Miles, who was the United Kingdom's ambassador in Libya at the time of the severing of diplomatic relations in 1984.]
The leak or tip-off to a journalist that Abd al-Basit al-Megrahi, convicted of responsibility for the Lockerbie atrocity, is to be freed on compassionate grounds may – unless Scottish ministers lose their nerve – bring this complex story to its dénouement. But there are still many questions to be answered.
The story is complex because it involves several interlocking issues. First, the guilt or innocence of Libya and of Megrahi personally. Next, the Libyan government's acceptance of responsibility for the atrocity on the basis of the decision of a Scottish court, payment of compensation at a colossal rate and attempts to negotiate his release. Third the British government's responsibility for the curious arrangements (a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands) which led to his conviction and for the new Prisoner Transfer Agreement under which he might be returned to Libya. And fourth the Scottish executive's responsibility for prisoners in Scotland and in particular for decisions about release on compassionate grounds.
Intensive negotiations between all these parties have been going on in recent months, largely behind the scenes, and there have been more than rumours to suggest that the Libyan pressure included threats of interference with prospective business interests including those of BP, whose exploration programme in Libya is currently their largest in the world.
The new report comes as a surprise in that it was previously considered that Megrahi's medical condition was not so acute as to justify compassionate release. That may have changed, and if it has I for one would unconditionally support his release. It will be very welcome to the Libyans, but perhaps less so to the British and Scottish authorities. Why? Because if Megrahi were to be released under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, a precondition is that he should abandon his appeal which has just started, and which even if not successful may well produce considerable embarrassment both in London and in Edinburgh. A Scottish law professor has already gone on the record claiming that it was a disgrace that he was convicted on the evidence presented. But if he is released on compassionate grounds his appeal can continue.
Could the Anglo-Libyan discussions have led to some kind of deal? Libya gets what it wants, and in return offers what? Will Megrahi withdraw his appeal as soon as he returns home? Will the Libyans refrain from embarrassing celebrations at the 40th anniversary of the revolution in September? Will they refrain from asking for their compensation back, a cool $2.7bn?
The leak or tip-off to a journalist that Abd al-Basit al-Megrahi, convicted of responsibility for the Lockerbie atrocity, is to be freed on compassionate grounds may – unless Scottish ministers lose their nerve – bring this complex story to its dénouement. But there are still many questions to be answered.
The story is complex because it involves several interlocking issues. First, the guilt or innocence of Libya and of Megrahi personally. Next, the Libyan government's acceptance of responsibility for the atrocity on the basis of the decision of a Scottish court, payment of compensation at a colossal rate and attempts to negotiate his release. Third the British government's responsibility for the curious arrangements (a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands) which led to his conviction and for the new Prisoner Transfer Agreement under which he might be returned to Libya. And fourth the Scottish executive's responsibility for prisoners in Scotland and in particular for decisions about release on compassionate grounds.
Intensive negotiations between all these parties have been going on in recent months, largely behind the scenes, and there have been more than rumours to suggest that the Libyan pressure included threats of interference with prospective business interests including those of BP, whose exploration programme in Libya is currently their largest in the world.
The new report comes as a surprise in that it was previously considered that Megrahi's medical condition was not so acute as to justify compassionate release. That may have changed, and if it has I for one would unconditionally support his release. It will be very welcome to the Libyans, but perhaps less so to the British and Scottish authorities. Why? Because if Megrahi were to be released under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, a precondition is that he should abandon his appeal which has just started, and which even if not successful may well produce considerable embarrassment both in London and in Edinburgh. A Scottish law professor has already gone on the record claiming that it was a disgrace that he was convicted on the evidence presented. But if he is released on compassionate grounds his appeal can continue.
Could the Anglo-Libyan discussions have led to some kind of deal? Libya gets what it wants, and in return offers what? Will Megrahi withdraw his appeal as soon as he returns home? Will the Libyans refrain from embarrassing celebrations at the 40th anniversary of the revolution in September? Will they refrain from asking for their compensation back, a cool $2.7bn?
Lockerbie bombing prisoner to go free
[Most British daily newspapers today contain reports to the effect that compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi is imminent. The following are excerpts from the report in today's edition of The Herald, which is the longest and most detailed.]
Then man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be released next week on compassionate grounds - nearly eight-and-a-half years after he was jailed for life for the murders of 270 people in the atrocity over Scotland.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is in the terminal stages of prostate cancer, is expected to return home to Tripoli before the start of Ramadan on August 21. His return will also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The Herald understands a final decision on Megrahi will be made and announced by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill next week.
The Scottish Government has strongly denied allegations that the prisoner and the recent Libyan delegation were given any suggestion that he should drop his appeal in order to win the right to return home. The decision will be based on Megrahi's deteriorating health and medical assessments.
However, he is expected to drop the appeal which began in April of this year. (...)
Originally it was thought that Megrahi would return home under a recent Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed with Libya. The Justice Secretary consulted with relatives of victims, Megrahi himself and the US State Attorney on this decision.
Prisoner transfer is thought to have been rejected as an option because it would be subject to judicial review and could lead to interminable delays. There is concern that Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, could die before the end of such a review and before the end of the current appeal. (...)
Martin Cadman, whose son lost his life in the Lockerbie bombing, last night welcomed news of Megrahi's imminent release.
"I've been waiting for it for a long time," he said. "First of all they were saying that Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah were accused, then Fhimah was found not guilty, and they were accused of acting with others, and as far as I know the Scottish authorities and everyone else has done nothing try and find who these others are. The whole thing is really very unsatisfactory for relatives like myself."
David Ben [Aryeah], who advised some of the UK families affected by the Lockerbie tragedy, said: "The majority of UK relatives have been extremely unhappy with the whole trial and the first appeal and what has been happening now. I was present the day of the verdicts and I was confused. So, I do not believe, and I will never believe, that this man was guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
"Of the American relatives, the vast majority are very quiet but a few very vocal ones have never accepted anything other than Megrahi's total guilt. Some of them, sadly, would like him to rot in prison for the rest of his days." (...)
History will be the judge if as expected Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, next week takes the decision to send the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The legal process which began almost 21 years ago will finally be over. Whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, did or did not plant the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie may never be known.
[The Herald's contention that Mr Megrahi is expected to abandon his appeal if granted compassionate release and its assertion that once compassionate release is granted the legal process will be finally over are deeply worrying. What is the source of this expectation? The Scottish Government Justice Department has stated unequivocally, in correspondence with me, that it has never been suggested to Mr Megrahi or to his government that compassionate release was dependent upon, or could be influenced by, his agreeing to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's stated position has always been that he wishes the appeal to proceed in order to clear his name, though if it came to a bald choice between clearing his name and being allowed to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family, he would reluctantly choose the latter. That was the dilemma that faced him when prisoner transfer was the only option on the table. But compassionate release is not contingent upon abandonment of the ongoing appeal: that is precisely its advantage over prisoner transfer from the standpoint of both Mr Megrahi and the Scottish public interest. Why therefore are there still rumblings about the appeal being abandoned if compassionate release is granted?]
Then man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be released next week on compassionate grounds - nearly eight-and-a-half years after he was jailed for life for the murders of 270 people in the atrocity over Scotland.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is in the terminal stages of prostate cancer, is expected to return home to Tripoli before the start of Ramadan on August 21. His return will also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The Herald understands a final decision on Megrahi will be made and announced by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill next week.
The Scottish Government has strongly denied allegations that the prisoner and the recent Libyan delegation were given any suggestion that he should drop his appeal in order to win the right to return home. The decision will be based on Megrahi's deteriorating health and medical assessments.
However, he is expected to drop the appeal which began in April of this year. (...)
Originally it was thought that Megrahi would return home under a recent Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed with Libya. The Justice Secretary consulted with relatives of victims, Megrahi himself and the US State Attorney on this decision.
Prisoner transfer is thought to have been rejected as an option because it would be subject to judicial review and could lead to interminable delays. There is concern that Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, could die before the end of such a review and before the end of the current appeal. (...)
Martin Cadman, whose son lost his life in the Lockerbie bombing, last night welcomed news of Megrahi's imminent release.
"I've been waiting for it for a long time," he said. "First of all they were saying that Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah were accused, then Fhimah was found not guilty, and they were accused of acting with others, and as far as I know the Scottish authorities and everyone else has done nothing try and find who these others are. The whole thing is really very unsatisfactory for relatives like myself."
David Ben [Aryeah], who advised some of the UK families affected by the Lockerbie tragedy, said: "The majority of UK relatives have been extremely unhappy with the whole trial and the first appeal and what has been happening now. I was present the day of the verdicts and I was confused. So, I do not believe, and I will never believe, that this man was guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
"Of the American relatives, the vast majority are very quiet but a few very vocal ones have never accepted anything other than Megrahi's total guilt. Some of them, sadly, would like him to rot in prison for the rest of his days." (...)
History will be the judge if as expected Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, next week takes the decision to send the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The legal process which began almost 21 years ago will finally be over. Whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, did or did not plant the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie may never be known.
[The Herald's contention that Mr Megrahi is expected to abandon his appeal if granted compassionate release and its assertion that once compassionate release is granted the legal process will be finally over are deeply worrying. What is the source of this expectation? The Scottish Government Justice Department has stated unequivocally, in correspondence with me, that it has never been suggested to Mr Megrahi or to his government that compassionate release was dependent upon, or could be influenced by, his agreeing to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's stated position has always been that he wishes the appeal to proceed in order to clear his name, though if it came to a bald choice between clearing his name and being allowed to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family, he would reluctantly choose the latter. That was the dilemma that faced him when prisoner transfer was the only option on the table. But compassionate release is not contingent upon abandonment of the ongoing appeal: that is precisely its advantage over prisoner transfer from the standpoint of both Mr Megrahi and the Scottish public interest. Why therefore are there still rumblings about the appeal being abandoned if compassionate release is granted?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)