[This is the headline over an article by The Herald's Chief Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. The following are excerpts:]
The Megrahi affair is the biggest tsunami to hit the Scottish Government in its young life, with an international impact which could sweep away belief in our legal system, and with that a plank of the whole case for independence.
It would have been good to see Mr Salmond stepping out in defence of the impossible decision Mr MacAskill faces, but it is not now the style of the FM. The call Mr MacAskill is pondering is the toughest of his career. For that matter, it is the toughest most politicians will face: should he show compassion to the biggest convicted mass murderer in British criminal history?
His decision has not been made any easier by the leak that prompted days of media speculation, and it is a decision he has been left to make alone, one that has no upside politically but a very big downside in the court of public and international opinion.
When you think back to the original Deal in the Desert over prisoner transfers struck between Tony Blair and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi in June 2007, there was a ferocious response from Mr Salmond as he complained bitterly about the position of the Scottish Government and its distinctive legal system being usurped. In the past week, the First Minister has not exactly rushed to the support of his Justice Secretary, even if reports of a row last Friday are wide of the mark.
While there are technical reasons why Mr MacAskill has to make this decision alone, it still seems odd not to see Mr Salmond weighing in. Normally there is no show without Punch. He has sent a round-robin letter to UN member states seeking support for Scotland banning Trident and was quick to boast a meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a coup when it suited him. Not now, however. (...)
It was first reported by a BBC Scotland journalist based in London last Wednesday that Mr MacAskill would free Megrahi this week. The Scottish Government was thrown on to the back foot because no announcement of such a time scale was planned.
This matters because political opponents have been given extra days to marshal orchestrated attacks on the Justice Secretary on the basis that he is damned whichever way he calls the decision, and at the same time it has made it increasingly unlikely that he could opt for no release at all.
The Scottish Government looks like it might end up with a deeply unsatisfactory outcome. Ministers wanted the Megrahi appeal to go ahead, but the prisoner transfer agreement put pressure on the defence to drop it. It is believed Mr MacAskill prefers the route of compassionate release on grounds of imminent death, leaving the appeal to go ahead.
It looks like the Foreign Office will get its way. Megrahi's appeal will be dropped, soon he will be sent home to Libya to die and, after that, we will be no nearer knowing the truth of Lockerbie and the Scottish legal system will not have been purged of this affair.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Briefing by Prime Minister's spokesman
[The website Downing Street Says publishes notes on the daily briefings given by a spokesman for the UK Prime Minister. What follows is its note on what was said this morning about Lockerbie and Megrahi.]
Asked what conversations there had been between Edinburgh and London over the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and whether Lord Mandelson had been involved in any such discussions, the PMS [Prime Minister's Spokesman] said that Lord Mandelson’s spokesman made clear over the weekend the extent of Lord Mandelson’s discussion with Colonel Gaddafi’s son.
The PMS went on to say that he was not in a position to give detail on every conversation that had taken place between London and Edinburgh; Lockerbie was a matter for the Scottish Government and any decision that related to any prisoner within a Scottish prison was a matter for Scottish Ministers.
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about the actions of Lord Mandelson during his holiday regarding behind-the-scene deals, the PMS said that we had been clear throughout that there had been no such deal and that Lord Mandelson’s spokesman had been clear on the extent of the conversation Lord Mandelson had had about Lockerbie.
Asked if there had been any contact between Downing Street and the US administration about Lockerbie over the last few days and if the release of Megrahi could damage relations between the UK and the US, the PMS said that we were in close contact with the US administration on a range of issues and we did not go into detail regarding those conversations. The US administration was aware of the UK Government’s position on the subject.
Asked if it was the case that Edinburgh was not at all interested in London’s point of view, the PMS said that we would not go into detail on conversations between London and Edinburgh regarding this; the point remained that all decisions related to this case were exclusively for Scottish Ministers, the Crown Office in Scotland and the Scottish judicial authorities.
Asked what conversations there had been between Edinburgh and London over the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and whether Lord Mandelson had been involved in any such discussions, the PMS [Prime Minister's Spokesman] said that Lord Mandelson’s spokesman made clear over the weekend the extent of Lord Mandelson’s discussion with Colonel Gaddafi’s son.
The PMS went on to say that he was not in a position to give detail on every conversation that had taken place between London and Edinburgh; Lockerbie was a matter for the Scottish Government and any decision that related to any prisoner within a Scottish prison was a matter for Scottish Ministers.
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about the actions of Lord Mandelson during his holiday regarding behind-the-scene deals, the PMS said that we had been clear throughout that there had been no such deal and that Lord Mandelson’s spokesman had been clear on the extent of the conversation Lord Mandelson had had about Lockerbie.
Asked if there had been any contact between Downing Street and the US administration about Lockerbie over the last few days and if the release of Megrahi could damage relations between the UK and the US, the PMS said that we were in close contact with the US administration on a range of issues and we did not go into detail regarding those conversations. The US administration was aware of the UK Government’s position on the subject.
Asked if it was the case that Edinburgh was not at all interested in London’s point of view, the PMS said that we would not go into detail on conversations between London and Edinburgh regarding this; the point remained that all decisions related to this case were exclusively for Scottish Ministers, the Crown Office in Scotland and the Scottish judicial authorities.
Senators want Lockerbie bomber kept behind bars
[What follows is an article posted on the website of the Washington DC publication The Hill.]
Seven senators called on the Scottish government on Monday to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi behind bars for his role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 following recent media reports that he may be released.
Following his conviction in 2001, al-Megrahi – a former Libyan intelligence officer – was sentenced to serve 27 years in a Scottish prison for his role in the bombing of the transatlantic flight that killed 270 people – including 180 Americans on board and 11 Scots on the ground in southern Scotland.
“Our international agreement called for his sentence to be served in Scotland and we believe strongly their should be no deviation from this sentence,” said Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in their letter.
The letter, which calls the bombing “horrific” and “heinous,” was sent to the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill after recent media reports have speculated that the Scottish government is set to consider al-Megrahi’s early release or transfer back to a prison in his homeland of Libya.
Al-Megrahi is expected to drop his appeal this week, which legally would allow the Scottish government, if it desired, to take action on his imprisonment status.
MacAskill has met with both al-Megrahi and the families of the victims in recent weeks. The meetings have further fueled reports that MacAskill may be considering the Libyan government’s calls for al-Megrahi’s release.
Al-Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and has used his health as a reason in pleas for his own “compassionate” release.
The senators’ letter made the case for his continued imprisonment by comparing the bombing to more recent terrorist attacks on Americans.
“Until the tragic events of September 11, 2001, no terrorist act had killed more American civilians,” said the letter of the bombing of the flight, which was headed from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport with a majority of Americans on board.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has also recently called on MacAskill to continue al-Megrahi’s imprisonment until his sentence has been completed.
MacAskill’s aides said no decision has been made regarding al-Megrahi’s release, continued imprisonment, or transfer, according to the Associated Press.
Seven senators called on the Scottish government on Monday to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi behind bars for his role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 following recent media reports that he may be released.
Following his conviction in 2001, al-Megrahi – a former Libyan intelligence officer – was sentenced to serve 27 years in a Scottish prison for his role in the bombing of the transatlantic flight that killed 270 people – including 180 Americans on board and 11 Scots on the ground in southern Scotland.
“Our international agreement called for his sentence to be served in Scotland and we believe strongly their should be no deviation from this sentence,” said Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in their letter.
The letter, which calls the bombing “horrific” and “heinous,” was sent to the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill after recent media reports have speculated that the Scottish government is set to consider al-Megrahi’s early release or transfer back to a prison in his homeland of Libya.
Al-Megrahi is expected to drop his appeal this week, which legally would allow the Scottish government, if it desired, to take action on his imprisonment status.
MacAskill has met with both al-Megrahi and the families of the victims in recent weeks. The meetings have further fueled reports that MacAskill may be considering the Libyan government’s calls for al-Megrahi’s release.
Al-Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and has used his health as a reason in pleas for his own “compassionate” release.
The senators’ letter made the case for his continued imprisonment by comparing the bombing to more recent terrorist attacks on Americans.
“Until the tragic events of September 11, 2001, no terrorist act had killed more American civilians,” said the letter of the bombing of the flight, which was headed from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport with a majority of Americans on board.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has also recently called on MacAskill to continue al-Megrahi’s imprisonment until his sentence has been completed.
MacAskill’s aides said no decision has been made regarding al-Megrahi’s release, continued imprisonment, or transfer, according to the Associated Press.
Scots justice system must not be tainted over Lockerbie bomber’s plight
[This is the headline over a leading article posted this evening on the new heraldscotland website, which will become the main online showcase for both The Herald and The Sunday Herald. It reads in part:]
What is now more evident than ever is the reality that Lockerbie, with its inter-connected diplomacy and the political dealing which has evolved since 1988, has become a trading post event; Libya, once the five-star outlaw of international law, has used Lockerbie to trade its way back to respectability. And when the United States and the UK needed a former villain to turn over a new leaf and show that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq offered a lesson to rogue states, Gaddafi’s Libya obliged. These games are still in play, this time around the commercial viability of BP’s potential £20 billion investment in Libya’s vast and untapped oil and gas reserves. The 40th anniversary of the military coup that brought Gaddafi to power is also close, and again this shrewd and manipulative leader needs a notable success to show his popularity and status is still deserved.
These are the unofficial constituents of a complex political equation, and ones difficult to identify with any firm certainty. They remain unquantifiable events that exist in the shadows of international politics and diplomacy. They will remains so until a court of law, or an independent judicial investigation, is allowed to re-examine what we now know about the events that led to the deaths of 270 innocent people on board flight 103.
If the Scottish justice secretary does allow Megrahi to go home, as now seems inevitable, a crucial chapter of Lockerbie’s aftermath will be blank. If there is to be no appeal then an examination carrying a similar legal authority has to brought in to continue the judicial process. At the moment, regardless of whether Megrahi is innocent or guilty, questions need to be addressed. Evidence needs to be re-examined, the international web of sovereign involvement has to be looked at again. All of this cannot be dismissed just because Megrahi is ill and is allowed home to die. A full judicial inquiry, camped firmly on the ground sifted over by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, is perhaps the only way to ensure the process of justice, and Scotland’s legal reputation, continues and remains untainted by the odour of political manipulation.
The guilt or innocence of Megrahi is therefore not the sole issue that will be at stake this week. Every family of those killed is entitled to want justice to be seen to be done. But there will be no such justice if Megrahi is simply put on a plane to Tripoli and the case is marked “closed”. With unanswered questions, no file can be closed – and Lockerbie has never been a case where convenient and diplomatically timed justice would be acceptable.
A horrific crime took place over Lockerbie in 1988. Who did it, who was responsible, who was involved: there remains a legal duty to deliver answers to these questions and a judicial inquiry, even after 21 years, remains an obligation neither the Scottish government nor the UK government can afford to trade away, whatever the price.
What is now more evident than ever is the reality that Lockerbie, with its inter-connected diplomacy and the political dealing which has evolved since 1988, has become a trading post event; Libya, once the five-star outlaw of international law, has used Lockerbie to trade its way back to respectability. And when the United States and the UK needed a former villain to turn over a new leaf and show that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq offered a lesson to rogue states, Gaddafi’s Libya obliged. These games are still in play, this time around the commercial viability of BP’s potential £20 billion investment in Libya’s vast and untapped oil and gas reserves. The 40th anniversary of the military coup that brought Gaddafi to power is also close, and again this shrewd and manipulative leader needs a notable success to show his popularity and status is still deserved.
These are the unofficial constituents of a complex political equation, and ones difficult to identify with any firm certainty. They remain unquantifiable events that exist in the shadows of international politics and diplomacy. They will remains so until a court of law, or an independent judicial investigation, is allowed to re-examine what we now know about the events that led to the deaths of 270 innocent people on board flight 103.
If the Scottish justice secretary does allow Megrahi to go home, as now seems inevitable, a crucial chapter of Lockerbie’s aftermath will be blank. If there is to be no appeal then an examination carrying a similar legal authority has to brought in to continue the judicial process. At the moment, regardless of whether Megrahi is innocent or guilty, questions need to be addressed. Evidence needs to be re-examined, the international web of sovereign involvement has to be looked at again. All of this cannot be dismissed just because Megrahi is ill and is allowed home to die. A full judicial inquiry, camped firmly on the ground sifted over by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, is perhaps the only way to ensure the process of justice, and Scotland’s legal reputation, continues and remains untainted by the odour of political manipulation.
The guilt or innocence of Megrahi is therefore not the sole issue that will be at stake this week. Every family of those killed is entitled to want justice to be seen to be done. But there will be no such justice if Megrahi is simply put on a plane to Tripoli and the case is marked “closed”. With unanswered questions, no file can be closed – and Lockerbie has never been a case where convenient and diplomatically timed justice would be acceptable.
A horrific crime took place over Lockerbie in 1988. Who did it, who was responsible, who was involved: there remains a legal duty to deliver answers to these questions and a judicial inquiry, even after 21 years, remains an obligation neither the Scottish government nor the UK government can afford to trade away, whatever the price.
The Lockerbie legacy
The leak of Megrahi's likely release has put the Scottish justice secretary in a fix. So who does he fear more: Libya or the US?
There have been some significant developments affecting the fate of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of involvement in the Lockerbie atrocity, since I wrote in Comment is free on 13 August.
There have been strong representations against his release from many of the families of the victims, particularly the American victims; this was expected, but what was not expected was that Hillary Clinton would make a personal démarche to the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, which seems to have shaken him. Second, Megrahi has applied to the court to withdraw his appeal, which had just started. Third, MacAskill is – not for the first time – expected to announce his decision (which he still claims not to have taken yet) within two weeks, but the other main political parties in Scotland have called for a debate in the Scottish Assembly. And fourth, we now learn that Peter Mandelson and Qadhafi's son Saif al-Islam discussed the matter a couple of weeks ago, in Corfu naturally; as all conspiracy theorists know, these two deserve each other, each the power behind the throne after his own fashion. I omit the Corfu near-summit from what follows, if only because the ball is at present in the Scottish, rather than the British, court.
I am personally relieved that it has now emerged that Megrahi's application to withdraw his appeal was made on 12 August, the very same day that the BBC were tipped off that Megrahi would be released on humanitarian grounds. I wondered if I had gone too far when I said on the Today programme next morning, as I hinted on Comment is free, that there had probably been a deal; so it's always comforting when evidence supporting a hypothesis emerges after the hypothesis is formulated. I suppose the court will agree that his appeal should be called off, because the alternative would be embarrassing. They might, I suppose, decide that the appeal should proceed on public interest grounds, but I think that would be improbably highminded.
The London-Edinburgh dingdong will continue. Earlier, Alex Salmond wrongfooted Tony Blair, who seems not to have realised, when the British government was negotiating the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, that prisoners in Scotland were the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Revenge is sweet; now it is Edinburgh that is accused of bungling.
And what are we to make of Hillary Clinton? Her call to MacAskill seems to have been prompted by the very strong feelings of the families of the American victims. But it is hard to see that American interests, as opposed to feelings, were at risk, or that she has much leverage with MacAskill. Indeed, if Megrahi dies in prison, the violent Libyan kneejerk kick aimed at Britain may well hit America, too.
So, here's the happy ending. Provided the withdrawal of the appeal is accepted, release by MacAskill of Megrahi on humanitarian grounds will suit everybody (except those who want the truth). The Libyans for obvious reasons; Hillary Clinton because she can tell her constituents in the US that she went the extra mile for justice American-style; and MacAskill because he can say that, with the greatest respect for Mrs Clinton and the US families' feelings etc, he had no alternative in view of the medical advice to doing the decent thing. Even London would have no cause to complain.
But when I tried this theory out on one of my nearest and dearest, the answer was simple: "MacAskill hasn't the balls."
[The above is the text of an article by Oliver Miles on the website of The Guardian. His earlier article in Comment is free can be read here.]
There have been some significant developments affecting the fate of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of involvement in the Lockerbie atrocity, since I wrote in Comment is free on 13 August.
There have been strong representations against his release from many of the families of the victims, particularly the American victims; this was expected, but what was not expected was that Hillary Clinton would make a personal démarche to the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, which seems to have shaken him. Second, Megrahi has applied to the court to withdraw his appeal, which had just started. Third, MacAskill is – not for the first time – expected to announce his decision (which he still claims not to have taken yet) within two weeks, but the other main political parties in Scotland have called for a debate in the Scottish Assembly. And fourth, we now learn that Peter Mandelson and Qadhafi's son Saif al-Islam discussed the matter a couple of weeks ago, in Corfu naturally; as all conspiracy theorists know, these two deserve each other, each the power behind the throne after his own fashion. I omit the Corfu near-summit from what follows, if only because the ball is at present in the Scottish, rather than the British, court.
I am personally relieved that it has now emerged that Megrahi's application to withdraw his appeal was made on 12 August, the very same day that the BBC were tipped off that Megrahi would be released on humanitarian grounds. I wondered if I had gone too far when I said on the Today programme next morning, as I hinted on Comment is free, that there had probably been a deal; so it's always comforting when evidence supporting a hypothesis emerges after the hypothesis is formulated. I suppose the court will agree that his appeal should be called off, because the alternative would be embarrassing. They might, I suppose, decide that the appeal should proceed on public interest grounds, but I think that would be improbably highminded.
The London-Edinburgh dingdong will continue. Earlier, Alex Salmond wrongfooted Tony Blair, who seems not to have realised, when the British government was negotiating the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, that prisoners in Scotland were the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Revenge is sweet; now it is Edinburgh that is accused of bungling.
And what are we to make of Hillary Clinton? Her call to MacAskill seems to have been prompted by the very strong feelings of the families of the American victims. But it is hard to see that American interests, as opposed to feelings, were at risk, or that she has much leverage with MacAskill. Indeed, if Megrahi dies in prison, the violent Libyan kneejerk kick aimed at Britain may well hit America, too.
So, here's the happy ending. Provided the withdrawal of the appeal is accepted, release by MacAskill of Megrahi on humanitarian grounds will suit everybody (except those who want the truth). The Libyans for obvious reasons; Hillary Clinton because she can tell her constituents in the US that she went the extra mile for justice American-style; and MacAskill because he can say that, with the greatest respect for Mrs Clinton and the US families' feelings etc, he had no alternative in view of the medical advice to doing the decent thing. Even London would have no cause to complain.
But when I tried this theory out on one of my nearest and dearest, the answer was simple: "MacAskill hasn't the balls."
[The above is the text of an article by Oliver Miles on the website of The Guardian. His earlier article in Comment is free can be read here.]
The truth about Lockerbie? That’s the last thing the Americans want the world to know.
By Tam Dalyell
Former Labour MP for Linlithgow and former Father of the House of Commons.
Why have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. I understand the grief of those parents, such as Kathleen Flynn and Bert Ammerman, who have appeared on our TV screens to speak about the loss of loved ones. Alas all these years they have been lied to about the cause of that grief.
Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.
It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.
The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.
Mostashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed. This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas.
American military personnel were pulled off the plane. A delegation of South Africans, including foreign minister Pik Botha, were pulled off Pan Am Flight 103 at the last minute.
Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.
If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed Bengt Carlsson, the UN negotiator for Angola whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.
No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.
If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry.
Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'.
Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed.
At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.
Fast forward 13 years. I was the chairman of the all-party House of Commons group on Latin America. I had hosted Dr Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, between the time that he won the election and formally took control in Bogota.
The Colombian ambassador, Victor Ricardo, invited me to dinner at his residence as Dr Uribe wanted to continue the conversations with me.
The South Americans are very formal. A man takes a woman in to dinner. To make up numbers, Ricardo had invited a little old lady, his neighbour. I was mandated to take her in to dinner. The lady was Margaret Thatcher, to whom I hadn't spoken for 17 years since I had been thrown out of the Commons for saying she had told a self-serving fib in relation to the Westland affair.
I told myself to behave. As we were sitting down to dinner, the conversation went like this. 'Margaret, I'm sorry your "head" was injured by that idiot who attacked your sculpture in the Guildhall.'
She replied pleasantly: 'Tam, I'm not sorry for myself, but I am sorry for the sculptor.' Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'
'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.
‘Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'
My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'
She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.'
My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night. Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.
As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said. Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.
On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'
I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.
[This is the text of an article that appeared yesterday in the Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. It does not appear on the newspaper's website. Also not appearing there is a long article in the same edition by Marcello Mega headlined "Lockerbie: the fatal cover-up". If some kind reader were to send me a digital version, I would post it -- or excerpts from it -- here.
Marcello Mega's article is now available online. It can be read here.]
Former Labour MP for Linlithgow and former Father of the House of Commons.
Why have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. I understand the grief of those parents, such as Kathleen Flynn and Bert Ammerman, who have appeared on our TV screens to speak about the loss of loved ones. Alas all these years they have been lied to about the cause of that grief.
Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.
It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.
The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.
Mostashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed. This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas.
American military personnel were pulled off the plane. A delegation of South Africans, including foreign minister Pik Botha, were pulled off Pan Am Flight 103 at the last minute.
Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.
If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed Bengt Carlsson, the UN negotiator for Angola whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.
No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.
If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry.
Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'.
Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed.
At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.
Fast forward 13 years. I was the chairman of the all-party House of Commons group on Latin America. I had hosted Dr Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, between the time that he won the election and formally took control in Bogota.
The Colombian ambassador, Victor Ricardo, invited me to dinner at his residence as Dr Uribe wanted to continue the conversations with me.
The South Americans are very formal. A man takes a woman in to dinner. To make up numbers, Ricardo had invited a little old lady, his neighbour. I was mandated to take her in to dinner. The lady was Margaret Thatcher, to whom I hadn't spoken for 17 years since I had been thrown out of the Commons for saying she had told a self-serving fib in relation to the Westland affair.
I told myself to behave. As we were sitting down to dinner, the conversation went like this. 'Margaret, I'm sorry your "head" was injured by that idiot who attacked your sculpture in the Guildhall.'
She replied pleasantly: 'Tam, I'm not sorry for myself, but I am sorry for the sculptor.' Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'
'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.
‘Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'
My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'
She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.'
My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night. Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.
As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said. Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.
On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'
I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.
[This is the text of an article that appeared yesterday in the Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. It does not appear on the newspaper's website. Also not appearing there is a long article in the same edition by Marcello Mega headlined "Lockerbie: the fatal cover-up". If some kind reader were to send me a digital version, I would post it -- or excerpts from it -- here.
Marcello Mega's article is now available online. It can be read here.]
Scotland to rule on Lockerbie bomber in next 10 days
Scotland's justice secretary will make an announcement in the next 10 days on the fate of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, a spokeswoman said on Monday.
"He's cancelled all engagements to consider this matter. We do expect a decision very soon and he'll make a public statement on his decision," the spokeswoman said, adding that the announcement should be made "within the next 10 days."
[From a Reuters news agency report.]
"He's cancelled all engagements to consider this matter. We do expect a decision very soon and he'll make a public statement on his decision," the spokeswoman said, adding that the announcement should be made "within the next 10 days."
[From a Reuters news agency report.]
Lockerbie bomber’s release ‘delayed by pressure from Hillary Clinton’
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times. It reads in part:]
The Scottish government appears to have buckled under pressure from the Obama Administration and abandoned its plans to release the Lockerbie bomber this week.
Senior sources said that there was “no chance” of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi being sent back to Libya on Wednesday as had been expected.
The plan to release the convicted terrorist, who has dropped his appeal against conviction, and return him to his native Libya, was thrown out after the intervention of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.
It is understood that Alex Salmond, the First Minister, summoned Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to a meeting on Friday amid fears that the decision for a release on compassionate grounds would lead to an international backlash. Al-Megrahi has advanced prostate cancer.
Mr MacAskill has now dropped a plan to allow al-Megrahi to leave Scotland in time for the start of Ramadan, around August 22, as Libya had wanted, amid concerns that he would receive a hero’s welcome.
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said that a decision would be made on al-Megrahi’s application for compassionate release before the end of the month. He denied that the timetable had slipped as a result of US pressure. The spokesman added: “We have always been aware of the American viewpoint.”
[A slightly different version of the same article can be read here.]
The Scottish government appears to have buckled under pressure from the Obama Administration and abandoned its plans to release the Lockerbie bomber this week.
Senior sources said that there was “no chance” of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi being sent back to Libya on Wednesday as had been expected.
The plan to release the convicted terrorist, who has dropped his appeal against conviction, and return him to his native Libya, was thrown out after the intervention of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.
It is understood that Alex Salmond, the First Minister, summoned Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to a meeting on Friday amid fears that the decision for a release on compassionate grounds would lead to an international backlash. Al-Megrahi has advanced prostate cancer.
Mr MacAskill has now dropped a plan to allow al-Megrahi to leave Scotland in time for the start of Ramadan, around August 22, as Libya had wanted, amid concerns that he would receive a hero’s welcome.
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said that a decision would be made on al-Megrahi’s application for compassionate release before the end of the month. He denied that the timetable had slipped as a result of US pressure. The spokesman added: “We have always been aware of the American viewpoint.”
[A slightly different version of the same article can be read here.]
Hopes dashed for in-depth inquiry into Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
A comprehensive public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing is unlikely to go ahead after the UK government said it would not support another investigation, The Scotsman can reveal.
Calls for an inquiry have been growing after the decision of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to drop a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 terrorist attack. Families of the victims had believed that many questions surrounding the attack would have been answered during the appeal.
Scottish Government sources also indicated they would be supportive of a joint "cross-border inquiry" between Holyrood and Westminster, but it emerged last night that senior officials have ruled out supporting another investigation.
Without Whitehall's support, experts have said a Scottish Government-initiated inquiry would be futile since it could only look at the workings of the Scottish judicial system and would have little power to call witnesses and demand crucial documents. Accusations have been made that SNP ministers in Holyrood have only floated the idea of a public inquiry to take the heat off the difficult decision facing justice secretary Kenny MacAskill over whether to send Megrahi back to Libya. (...)
Last night Libya's charge d'affaires in London, Omar Jelban, said reports that Megrahi has just three months to live were the reason he has dropped a second appeal and hopes to return to his family shortly.
Two applications have been made by Megrahi's lawyers, one for compassionate release because of his ill-health and the other a prisoner transfer following an agreement between the UK and Libyan governments.
The Scotsman understands that compassionate release is more likely because it is "the least objectionable" to the American government since it does not break the terms of the international agreement that Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland.
Yesterday the Scottish Government made clear it did not want to go on the record over its hopes to have a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing until after a decision had been made on whether to send Megrahi back to Libya.
However, sources confirmed that ministers would be inclined to support a public inquiry. One senior source pointed out that, in the past, First Minister Alex Salmond had supported this, but the SNP realise that for it to have teeth it would need to be supported by the UK government.
Last night a senior Whitehall source indicated to The Scotsman that this support would not be forthcoming.
He said there would be no formal comment until after a decision had been made by Mr MacAskill regarding Megrahi's future. But he claimed that the prospect of an inquiry was only being aired in briefings because "SNP ministers don't like to have to make difficult decisions". He claimed Mr MacAskill was "feeling the heat" over having to decide whether to send Megrahi back to Libya and was floating ideas to "create a distraction".
There were also questions from Whitehall over why a public inquiry would be necessary when a man had been found guilty of the crime in a trial run by Scottish judges under Scottish law, which had already been unsuccessfully appealed once.
[Note by RB: There was never any hope that Westminster and Whitehall would cooperate in an enquiry into Lockerbie. The fact that an independent body concluded that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice and that serious concerns have been raised about the investigation and prosecution cuts no ice with them. They have too much to hide.
A purely Scottish enquiry would of necessity be limited but nevertheless worthwhile. Having an independent person or body scrutinise the investigation, prosecution and adjudication process in the Lockerbie case and determine what, if anything, went wrong would surely help to restore the tarnished reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system.]
There is a further report in The Scotsman headed "Megrahi's mother makes plea for release". It reads in part:
'The Lockerbie bomber's 95-year-old mother has made an emotional appeal for her son to return to Libya.
'The frail woman directed her plea to Scottish ministers, saying: "Please send my son home."
'Hajja Fatma Ali al-Araibi has not been told her son has terminal cancer because her other children fear the shock will be too great.
'She also revealed that her son, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, phoned her at the end of last week to say he hoped to be home for the start of Ramadan on Friday.
'She said he had been called from Greenock prison, where he is serving a 27-year sentence for mass murder, and said to her: "I hope by Ramadan I will be with you." (...)
'Mrs Araibi appealed for Mr MacAskill to release her "scapegoat" son and said she could not wait to "run out to the street and hug him so tight".
'She said: "I do not close the house door at all. I am expecting him to enter at any moment. For 11 years I have not spent the holy month of Ramadan with him. I am waiting for that day when he comes back."
'Mrs Araibi said she was surrounded by family members as the news of her son's possible release broke last week, including Megrahi's elder brother, Mohammed Ali, and several grandchildren.
'Sending a message to the relatives of the 270 victims of Pan Am Flight 103, she said: "We told them that my son was innocent, that he would not slaughter a chicken at home."'
A comprehensive public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing is unlikely to go ahead after the UK government said it would not support another investigation, The Scotsman can reveal.
Calls for an inquiry have been growing after the decision of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to drop a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 terrorist attack. Families of the victims had believed that many questions surrounding the attack would have been answered during the appeal.
Scottish Government sources also indicated they would be supportive of a joint "cross-border inquiry" between Holyrood and Westminster, but it emerged last night that senior officials have ruled out supporting another investigation.
Without Whitehall's support, experts have said a Scottish Government-initiated inquiry would be futile since it could only look at the workings of the Scottish judicial system and would have little power to call witnesses and demand crucial documents. Accusations have been made that SNP ministers in Holyrood have only floated the idea of a public inquiry to take the heat off the difficult decision facing justice secretary Kenny MacAskill over whether to send Megrahi back to Libya. (...)
Last night Libya's charge d'affaires in London, Omar Jelban, said reports that Megrahi has just three months to live were the reason he has dropped a second appeal and hopes to return to his family shortly.
Two applications have been made by Megrahi's lawyers, one for compassionate release because of his ill-health and the other a prisoner transfer following an agreement between the UK and Libyan governments.
The Scotsman understands that compassionate release is more likely because it is "the least objectionable" to the American government since it does not break the terms of the international agreement that Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland.
Yesterday the Scottish Government made clear it did not want to go on the record over its hopes to have a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing until after a decision had been made on whether to send Megrahi back to Libya.
However, sources confirmed that ministers would be inclined to support a public inquiry. One senior source pointed out that, in the past, First Minister Alex Salmond had supported this, but the SNP realise that for it to have teeth it would need to be supported by the UK government.
Last night a senior Whitehall source indicated to The Scotsman that this support would not be forthcoming.
He said there would be no formal comment until after a decision had been made by Mr MacAskill regarding Megrahi's future. But he claimed that the prospect of an inquiry was only being aired in briefings because "SNP ministers don't like to have to make difficult decisions". He claimed Mr MacAskill was "feeling the heat" over having to decide whether to send Megrahi back to Libya and was floating ideas to "create a distraction".
There were also questions from Whitehall over why a public inquiry would be necessary when a man had been found guilty of the crime in a trial run by Scottish judges under Scottish law, which had already been unsuccessfully appealed once.
[Note by RB: There was never any hope that Westminster and Whitehall would cooperate in an enquiry into Lockerbie. The fact that an independent body concluded that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice and that serious concerns have been raised about the investigation and prosecution cuts no ice with them. They have too much to hide.
A purely Scottish enquiry would of necessity be limited but nevertheless worthwhile. Having an independent person or body scrutinise the investigation, prosecution and adjudication process in the Lockerbie case and determine what, if anything, went wrong would surely help to restore the tarnished reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system.]
There is a further report in The Scotsman headed "Megrahi's mother makes plea for release". It reads in part:
'The Lockerbie bomber's 95-year-old mother has made an emotional appeal for her son to return to Libya.
'The frail woman directed her plea to Scottish ministers, saying: "Please send my son home."
'Hajja Fatma Ali al-Araibi has not been told her son has terminal cancer because her other children fear the shock will be too great.
'She also revealed that her son, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, phoned her at the end of last week to say he hoped to be home for the start of Ramadan on Friday.
'She said he had been called from Greenock prison, where he is serving a 27-year sentence for mass murder, and said to her: "I hope by Ramadan I will be with you." (...)
'Mrs Araibi appealed for Mr MacAskill to release her "scapegoat" son and said she could not wait to "run out to the street and hug him so tight".
'She said: "I do not close the house door at all. I am expecting him to enter at any moment. For 11 years I have not spent the holy month of Ramadan with him. I am waiting for that day when he comes back."
'Mrs Araibi said she was surrounded by family members as the news of her son's possible release broke last week, including Megrahi's elder brother, Mohammed Ali, and several grandchildren.
'Sending a message to the relatives of the 270 victims of Pan Am Flight 103, she said: "We told them that my son was innocent, that he would not slaughter a chicken at home."'
Lockerbie verdict a ‘travesty’ for which we will pay price
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
When Robin Cook and President Clinton agreed to allow a modified form of Professor Black's neutral-country trial of the alleged Lockerbie bombers, they began a process which we now see has transcended even the freshness and hope of the Obama administration. Hope that the behaviour of our mighty transatlantic ally was henceforth to be driven by a philosophy enshrining integrity, right and truth, particularly including human rights.
In the matter of the man suffering in Greenock prison, that is not so.
The naked intervention of President Clinton's wife in the affair has to be seen as the intervention of ignorance, a voice from the previous regime. I have tried but failed to penetrate the Obama administration to warn it that there was highly credible evidence they were wrong to believe the Lockerbie issue honourably settled. I failed to penetrate it.
I can forgive Obama and retain faith in his principles, for I believe that he simply has not found time to review the basis on which the decision to allow his Secretary of State to intervene was based. (...)
At a summit in Birmingham, England, many years ago, I tried to meet President Clinton. Instead I was fobbed off with a security adviser called Bandler at the president's hotel in Birmingham.
I asked him what plans his president had to overcome what was then the Lockerbie deadlock. There were none, until the resources of the CIA and MI6 were later engaged to prepare the way for the show trial that was to ensue at Zeist in Holland.
Holland was wonderful, Robin Cook was on our side, seeking to support the forces of justice.
We were entranced, expecting to discover the truth.
But by the time Jack Straw arranged a conference call to the UK relatives after the verdict, to bask in what was presented as a victory for the judicial probity of the West, my words to him were: "Mr Straw, I think you should get your people to study the evidence from this trial, not to sit back and enjoy the verdict."
That was, of course, not to be. (...)
What now? Sooner or later the truth will out. Perhaps we shall play a part in reaching that day, perhaps it will only be revealed at the bar of history.
Of one thing I am certain: our culture and our countries' reputations will pay a terrible price in the long run for what became a travesty of justice.
The nascent independence of Scotland will be mortally wounded unless she roots out those who have contributed to this monstrosity of a verdict that is the product of self-interest and international pressure, joined by a failure of any knight in shining armour to emerge from among us with the weapons to uphold truth and justice.
It may look as though just one Arab has paid the price of our perfidy: this is not so. I fear we shall all pay.
My daughter, and those who died with her, deserved a far better memorial to their young lives snuffed out. I tried.
[An article entitled "Megrahi awaits decision with months left to live" by Michael Settle, The Herald's UK Political Editor, can be read here.]
When Robin Cook and President Clinton agreed to allow a modified form of Professor Black's neutral-country trial of the alleged Lockerbie bombers, they began a process which we now see has transcended even the freshness and hope of the Obama administration. Hope that the behaviour of our mighty transatlantic ally was henceforth to be driven by a philosophy enshrining integrity, right and truth, particularly including human rights.
In the matter of the man suffering in Greenock prison, that is not so.
The naked intervention of President Clinton's wife in the affair has to be seen as the intervention of ignorance, a voice from the previous regime. I have tried but failed to penetrate the Obama administration to warn it that there was highly credible evidence they were wrong to believe the Lockerbie issue honourably settled. I failed to penetrate it.
I can forgive Obama and retain faith in his principles, for I believe that he simply has not found time to review the basis on which the decision to allow his Secretary of State to intervene was based. (...)
At a summit in Birmingham, England, many years ago, I tried to meet President Clinton. Instead I was fobbed off with a security adviser called Bandler at the president's hotel in Birmingham.
I asked him what plans his president had to overcome what was then the Lockerbie deadlock. There were none, until the resources of the CIA and MI6 were later engaged to prepare the way for the show trial that was to ensue at Zeist in Holland.
Holland was wonderful, Robin Cook was on our side, seeking to support the forces of justice.
We were entranced, expecting to discover the truth.
But by the time Jack Straw arranged a conference call to the UK relatives after the verdict, to bask in what was presented as a victory for the judicial probity of the West, my words to him were: "Mr Straw, I think you should get your people to study the evidence from this trial, not to sit back and enjoy the verdict."
That was, of course, not to be. (...)
What now? Sooner or later the truth will out. Perhaps we shall play a part in reaching that day, perhaps it will only be revealed at the bar of history.
Of one thing I am certain: our culture and our countries' reputations will pay a terrible price in the long run for what became a travesty of justice.
The nascent independence of Scotland will be mortally wounded unless she roots out those who have contributed to this monstrosity of a verdict that is the product of self-interest and international pressure, joined by a failure of any knight in shining armour to emerge from among us with the weapons to uphold truth and justice.
It may look as though just one Arab has paid the price of our perfidy: this is not so. I fear we shall all pay.
My daughter, and those who died with her, deserved a far better memorial to their young lives snuffed out. I tried.
[An article entitled "Megrahi awaits decision with months left to live" by Michael Settle, The Herald's UK Political Editor, can be read here.]
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Decision to drop Lockerbie appeal smacks of 'political deal'
[This is a headline over an article in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. The following are excerpts.]
The 'Lockerbie bomber's' request to drop the appeal he fought so hard to gain smacks of a political deal, according to a legal expert appointed by the UN to monitor the trial.
Hans Koechler told The Sunday Times he is of the opinion that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging. If Abdel Basset Al Megrahi remains convicted, the accusation that the bomb which killed 270 people left Malta would stand, he said. (...)
The repercussions for Malta were also raised by criminal lawyer Emmanuel Mallia, who had followed proceedings and examined evidence at the trial: "We shall still be lumped with this accusation that our airport aided and abetted the alleged perpetrators." (...)
Malta was implicated in the case because the prosecution said Mr Al Megrahi had originally placed the bomb on an Air Malta flight. It was argued the suitcase containing the bomb was then transferred at Frankfurt airport to Pan Am flight 103A that later exploded over Lockerbie after leaving London Heathrow.
One of the main witnesses was a Sliema shop owner who identified Mr Al Megrahi as the one who bought the clothes in which the bomb was wrapped. Doubts were, however, cast over the validity of his testimony.
Dr Mallia told The Sunday Times that Mr Al Megrahi did everything in his power to show the world that the machinery of justice wrongly convicted him, adding that giving up his appeal may well have been a condition for his release on compassionate grounds.
"I would never believe that Basset (Al Megrahi) would have given up on his appeal, after he had worked so hard to seek 'true' justice," he said. (...)
Controversy has long surrounded the original trial as well as his second appeal in 2002, which Mr Al Megrahi lost. Concerns were raised that the judgment was based on circumstantial evidence, a view also held by Dr Koechler who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the trial.
Dr Koechler now says that if the ongoing appeal is dropped, the truth may never come out and justice will never be done. "Neither the UK nor the Scottish establishment is interested in the truth.
"The constellation of interests between the UK and Libya is such that both sides have decided to put the past behind and engage in a new phase of 'realpolitik'," he added.
He insisted that if Mr Al Megrahi is released now, it would seem like a political deal. (...)
Insisting there was no proof that the bomb ever left from Malta, Prof. Black said the conviction of Mr Al Megrahi was a disgrace.
On this point, Dr Mallia said that, with hindsight, many may argue that the Maltese government at the time could have acted differently, and that Malta was perhaps too compliant. The government gave access to the foreign Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary.
He hoped this would serve as a lesson for future instances when foreign police and 'others' request aid from our state to carry out investigations in Malta.
When one examines the many handwritten statements allegedly taken from many 'key' people by foreign police officers, many may argue that much left to be desired, Dr Mallia said.
He said it was a pity that the judicial pronouncement of guilt would stand without the opportunity of further judicial review, but the lawyer added he was sure much would be written on this subject that "will put 'many' in the dock so that the general public can form their own verdicts".
"I am sure there are local authorities who may have very important documents which, when revealed, may show that Malta had absolutely nothing to do with this unfortunate and tragic episode in history," Dr Mallia said.
The Maltese government has so far declined to comment on the issue.
The 'Lockerbie bomber's' request to drop the appeal he fought so hard to gain smacks of a political deal, according to a legal expert appointed by the UN to monitor the trial.
Hans Koechler told The Sunday Times he is of the opinion that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging. If Abdel Basset Al Megrahi remains convicted, the accusation that the bomb which killed 270 people left Malta would stand, he said. (...)
The repercussions for Malta were also raised by criminal lawyer Emmanuel Mallia, who had followed proceedings and examined evidence at the trial: "We shall still be lumped with this accusation that our airport aided and abetted the alleged perpetrators." (...)
Malta was implicated in the case because the prosecution said Mr Al Megrahi had originally placed the bomb on an Air Malta flight. It was argued the suitcase containing the bomb was then transferred at Frankfurt airport to Pan Am flight 103A that later exploded over Lockerbie after leaving London Heathrow.
One of the main witnesses was a Sliema shop owner who identified Mr Al Megrahi as the one who bought the clothes in which the bomb was wrapped. Doubts were, however, cast over the validity of his testimony.
Dr Mallia told The Sunday Times that Mr Al Megrahi did everything in his power to show the world that the machinery of justice wrongly convicted him, adding that giving up his appeal may well have been a condition for his release on compassionate grounds.
"I would never believe that Basset (Al Megrahi) would have given up on his appeal, after he had worked so hard to seek 'true' justice," he said. (...)
Controversy has long surrounded the original trial as well as his second appeal in 2002, which Mr Al Megrahi lost. Concerns were raised that the judgment was based on circumstantial evidence, a view also held by Dr Koechler who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the trial.
Dr Koechler now says that if the ongoing appeal is dropped, the truth may never come out and justice will never be done. "Neither the UK nor the Scottish establishment is interested in the truth.
"The constellation of interests between the UK and Libya is such that both sides have decided to put the past behind and engage in a new phase of 'realpolitik'," he added.
He insisted that if Mr Al Megrahi is released now, it would seem like a political deal. (...)
Insisting there was no proof that the bomb ever left from Malta, Prof. Black said the conviction of Mr Al Megrahi was a disgrace.
On this point, Dr Mallia said that, with hindsight, many may argue that the Maltese government at the time could have acted differently, and that Malta was perhaps too compliant. The government gave access to the foreign Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary.
He hoped this would serve as a lesson for future instances when foreign police and 'others' request aid from our state to carry out investigations in Malta.
When one examines the many handwritten statements allegedly taken from many 'key' people by foreign police officers, many may argue that much left to be desired, Dr Mallia said.
He said it was a pity that the judicial pronouncement of guilt would stand without the opportunity of further judicial review, but the lawyer added he was sure much would be written on this subject that "will put 'many' in the dock so that the general public can form their own verdicts".
"I am sure there are local authorities who may have very important documents which, when revealed, may show that Malta had absolutely nothing to do with this unfortunate and tragic episode in history," Dr Mallia said.
The Maltese government has so far declined to comment on the issue.
The Sunday newspapers
Most of the Scottish and UK Sunday newspapers have lengthy articles, commentaries and features on the past week's developments in the saga of the fate of Abdelbaset Megrahi. They consider the implications of his decision to abandon his appeal for the man himself, for the relatives of those killed at Lockerbie, for the nations most closely involved and for the Scottish criminal justice system. With one exception, all of them assume that Mr Megrahi will be repatriated later this week. The exception is Scotland on Sunday which has a report by Political Editor Eddie Barnes headed "Lockerbie bomber faces death in jail" which reads in part:
'The Lockerbie bomber's health has deteriorated to the point that he may die before any decision is made about his release from jail, Scotland on Sunday has discovered.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is believed to be no longer receiving treatment for his prostate cancer but having pain relief offered to those in the final stages of the disease.
'Government sources confirmed yesterday that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill will not reveal his decision on whether or not to release the convicted terrorist this week, and may even take until the end of the month before showing his hand. (...)
'It had been widely expected that MacAskill would make his decision this week.
'But Scotland on Sunday has been told that a decision this week "can be ruled out", as MacAskill is awaiting more submissions from the prison governor at Greenock and the Scottish Parole Board.'
A further article entitled "The end game: The fate of Lockerbie bomber" in the same newspaper can be read here The first of these articles should be contrasted with one appearing in the Sunday Mail which can be read here. The Mail on Sunday has an article to the effect that the consultants treating Mr Megrahi have reported that he has no longer than three months to live.
The Sunday Herald's coverage consists of a four-page spread headed "Lockerbie: after the conspiracies ... the cover up?" This is divided into sections entitled "MacAskill in the eye of the storm"; "The legal system has nothing to be ashamed of ... unlike Holyrood" by Scottish Tory legal spokesman Paul McBride QC; "I will never rest until I know who killed my daughter ... and why" on the reactions of relatives such as Dr Jim Swire; "An inquiry is the only hope of getting a new criminal probe" on the case for setting up an inquiry now that the appeal is being abandoned; and "A potent mix of politics and oil" on the politics that may lie behind abandonment of the appeal and repatriation.
The same newspaper has another article headlined "Holyrood set to back calls for Lockerbie public inquiry". It reads in part:
'The Scottish government is likely to back a comprehensive public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster after all legal proceedings are resolved. First minister Alex Salmond's administration is said to be "very relaxed" about either a United Nations probe or a joint inquiry between Holyrood and Westminster into the terrorist atrocity.
'It is understood a stand-alone Scottish investigation has been downplayed as an option due to the limited powers the SNP government would have to compel witnesses. (...)
'The families of the 270 victims fear that dropping the appeal will end the possibility of finding out the truth behind the worst terrorist act on British soil.
'However, it is understood the Scottish government has accepted a public inquiry into the disaster should take place once Megrahi is home and his appeal has been dropped.
'Officials have explored the possibility of Salmond's administration launching its own inquiry, but the idea has been deemed a non-starter.
'This is because the terms of the Scotland Act, which sets out the powers of the devolved parliament, would hinder an inquiry's ability to demand documents and compel witnesses to give evidence. It is understood Salmond's government would prefer a joint cross-border inquiry with Westminster, which would have far greater powers.
'Another option would be for the United Nations to launch an investigation that would command international co-operation.
'However, Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University law school said the UK government would never consent to a cross-border investigation, adding that a stand-alone Scottish inquiry would be valuable.
'"It would look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication. All of them are within the powers of the Scottish government and Scottish parliament.
'"It wouldn't satisfy the relatives, whose primary concern is to know what happened, but to me and the people of Scotland, knowing how the criminal justice system works seems a very important goal and one which can be achieved within Scotland."'
The Sunday Times publishes an article headed "US blamed Iran for Lockerbie bomb". It reads in part:
'American intelligence documents blaming Iran for the Lockerbie bombing would have been produced in court if the Libyan convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist attack had not dropped his appeal.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer expected to be freed this week, had instructed his lawyers to produce US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) cables implicating the so-called “rogue state”.
'The memo suggests Iran was behind the attack on Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, in response to the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by the USS Vincennes, an American warship, five months earlier.
'One document the defence team had planned to produce was a memo from the DIA dated September 24, 1989. It states: “The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.
'“The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) leader, for a sum of $1m (£600,700).
'“$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammad Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses. The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.”
'The document is included in an unpublished report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a public body which considers miscarriage of justice claims, and which in 2007 cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction.
'The report also cites a DIA briefing in December 1989 entitled “Pan Am 103, Deadly Co-operation” which named Iran as the likely state sponsor of the bombing.
'The briefing stated that the PFLP-GC was “fast becoming an Iranian proxy” and that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of the Iran Air 655 airbus may have been the result of such Iranian and PFLP-GC co-operation.
'The DIA briefing discounted Libya’s involvement in the bombing on the basis that there was “no current credible intelligence” implicating her. It stated: “Following a brief increase in anti-US terrorist attacks after the US airstrike on Libya [in 1986], Gaddafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.”
'Robert Baer, a retired senior CIA agent who claims Iran was behind the attack, has alleged that the Americans were wary of pursuing the country in case it disrupted oil supplies and damaged the economy.'
'The Lockerbie bomber's health has deteriorated to the point that he may die before any decision is made about his release from jail, Scotland on Sunday has discovered.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is believed to be no longer receiving treatment for his prostate cancer but having pain relief offered to those in the final stages of the disease.
'Government sources confirmed yesterday that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill will not reveal his decision on whether or not to release the convicted terrorist this week, and may even take until the end of the month before showing his hand. (...)
'It had been widely expected that MacAskill would make his decision this week.
'But Scotland on Sunday has been told that a decision this week "can be ruled out", as MacAskill is awaiting more submissions from the prison governor at Greenock and the Scottish Parole Board.'
A further article entitled "The end game: The fate of Lockerbie bomber" in the same newspaper can be read here The first of these articles should be contrasted with one appearing in the Sunday Mail which can be read here. The Mail on Sunday has an article to the effect that the consultants treating Mr Megrahi have reported that he has no longer than three months to live.
The Sunday Herald's coverage consists of a four-page spread headed "Lockerbie: after the conspiracies ... the cover up?" This is divided into sections entitled "MacAskill in the eye of the storm"; "The legal system has nothing to be ashamed of ... unlike Holyrood" by Scottish Tory legal spokesman Paul McBride QC; "I will never rest until I know who killed my daughter ... and why" on the reactions of relatives such as Dr Jim Swire; "An inquiry is the only hope of getting a new criminal probe" on the case for setting up an inquiry now that the appeal is being abandoned; and "A potent mix of politics and oil" on the politics that may lie behind abandonment of the appeal and repatriation.
The same newspaper has another article headlined "Holyrood set to back calls for Lockerbie public inquiry". It reads in part:
'The Scottish government is likely to back a comprehensive public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster after all legal proceedings are resolved. First minister Alex Salmond's administration is said to be "very relaxed" about either a United Nations probe or a joint inquiry between Holyrood and Westminster into the terrorist atrocity.
'It is understood a stand-alone Scottish investigation has been downplayed as an option due to the limited powers the SNP government would have to compel witnesses. (...)
'The families of the 270 victims fear that dropping the appeal will end the possibility of finding out the truth behind the worst terrorist act on British soil.
'However, it is understood the Scottish government has accepted a public inquiry into the disaster should take place once Megrahi is home and his appeal has been dropped.
'Officials have explored the possibility of Salmond's administration launching its own inquiry, but the idea has been deemed a non-starter.
'This is because the terms of the Scotland Act, which sets out the powers of the devolved parliament, would hinder an inquiry's ability to demand documents and compel witnesses to give evidence. It is understood Salmond's government would prefer a joint cross-border inquiry with Westminster, which would have far greater powers.
'Another option would be for the United Nations to launch an investigation that would command international co-operation.
'However, Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University law school said the UK government would never consent to a cross-border investigation, adding that a stand-alone Scottish inquiry would be valuable.
'"It would look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication. All of them are within the powers of the Scottish government and Scottish parliament.
'"It wouldn't satisfy the relatives, whose primary concern is to know what happened, but to me and the people of Scotland, knowing how the criminal justice system works seems a very important goal and one which can be achieved within Scotland."'
The Sunday Times publishes an article headed "US blamed Iran for Lockerbie bomb". It reads in part:
'American intelligence documents blaming Iran for the Lockerbie bombing would have been produced in court if the Libyan convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist attack had not dropped his appeal.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer expected to be freed this week, had instructed his lawyers to produce US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) cables implicating the so-called “rogue state”.
'The memo suggests Iran was behind the attack on Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, in response to the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by the USS Vincennes, an American warship, five months earlier.
'One document the defence team had planned to produce was a memo from the DIA dated September 24, 1989. It states: “The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.
'“The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) leader, for a sum of $1m (£600,700).
'“$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammad Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses. The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.”
'The document is included in an unpublished report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a public body which considers miscarriage of justice claims, and which in 2007 cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction.
'The report also cites a DIA briefing in December 1989 entitled “Pan Am 103, Deadly Co-operation” which named Iran as the likely state sponsor of the bombing.
'The briefing stated that the PFLP-GC was “fast becoming an Iranian proxy” and that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of the Iran Air 655 airbus may have been the result of such Iranian and PFLP-GC co-operation.
'The DIA briefing discounted Libya’s involvement in the bombing on the basis that there was “no current credible intelligence” implicating her. It stated: “Following a brief increase in anti-US terrorist attacks after the US airstrike on Libya [in 1986], Gaddafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.”
'Robert Baer, a retired senior CIA agent who claims Iran was behind the attack, has alleged that the Americans were wary of pursuing the country in case it disrupted oil supplies and damaged the economy.'
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Lockerbie bombing: victim's father to sue
The leading campaigner for justice over the Lockerbie tragedy, Dr Jim Swire, is planning a ground-beaking legal action more than 20 years after the terrorist attack that claimed 270 lives.
Dr Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, is preparing to sue the Scottish prosecution service because he is convinced it deliberately blocked attempts to bring his daughter's "real" killers to court.
He is planning the action under human rights legislation just three days after it was disclosed that the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be released later this month. (...)
Dr Swire, 73, a spokesman for the relatives of the victims, is convinced that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. (...)
Dr Swire has told of his determination to bring his daughter's killers to justice in a letter sent to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, in which he is critical of the Crown Office, which is responsible for criminal prosecutions in Scotland.
In the letter, he highlights the fact that evidence from a Heathrow security guard was suppressed for more than 12 years and did not figure at Megrahi's trial in 2000 and 2001.
The guard revealed that Pan Am's baggage area at Heathrow was broken into 17 hours before Flight 103 took off from the airport for New York.
Dr Swire believes that this was probably when the bomb was planted, not much earlier on a flight from Malta.
In his letter, sent on Aug 10, Dr Swire says that he is now "reluctantly" looking at two projects:
- "To take action against the Crown Office under Human Rights legislation, since I now believe that the Crown Office has deliberately obstructed my rights to know who killed my daughter and why she was not protected, and continues to do so," and
- "To seek annulment of the findings of the Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry [of 1990] on grounds of withholding of evidence about Heathrow, and then to seek a new FAI or legitimate equivalent in its place." (...)
In 2003, Ahmed Own, Libya's ambassador to the United Nations, submitted a letter to the Security Council in which Libya accepted "responsibility for the actions of its officials" regarding the bombing.
Yet the following year, Sukri Ghanem, the Libyan Prime Minister, insisted the compensation payment was the "price of peace" with the West and was simply designed to remove sanctions
Lawyers for Megrahi had launched a second appeal over his conviction – the first was unsuccessful – but it was revealed on Friday that the convicted killer has now applied to abandon this action.
His supporters are optimistic he will be freed within days because of his serious illness. The Crown Office insists the conviction is safe and that no decision on his release has yet been taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary.
[From an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter.]
Dr Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, is preparing to sue the Scottish prosecution service because he is convinced it deliberately blocked attempts to bring his daughter's "real" killers to court.
He is planning the action under human rights legislation just three days after it was disclosed that the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be released later this month. (...)
Dr Swire, 73, a spokesman for the relatives of the victims, is convinced that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. (...)
Dr Swire has told of his determination to bring his daughter's killers to justice in a letter sent to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, in which he is critical of the Crown Office, which is responsible for criminal prosecutions in Scotland.
In the letter, he highlights the fact that evidence from a Heathrow security guard was suppressed for more than 12 years and did not figure at Megrahi's trial in 2000 and 2001.
The guard revealed that Pan Am's baggage area at Heathrow was broken into 17 hours before Flight 103 took off from the airport for New York.
Dr Swire believes that this was probably when the bomb was planted, not much earlier on a flight from Malta.
In his letter, sent on Aug 10, Dr Swire says that he is now "reluctantly" looking at two projects:
- "To take action against the Crown Office under Human Rights legislation, since I now believe that the Crown Office has deliberately obstructed my rights to know who killed my daughter and why she was not protected, and continues to do so," and
- "To seek annulment of the findings of the Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry [of 1990] on grounds of withholding of evidence about Heathrow, and then to seek a new FAI or legitimate equivalent in its place." (...)
In 2003, Ahmed Own, Libya's ambassador to the United Nations, submitted a letter to the Security Council in which Libya accepted "responsibility for the actions of its officials" regarding the bombing.
Yet the following year, Sukri Ghanem, the Libyan Prime Minister, insisted the compensation payment was the "price of peace" with the West and was simply designed to remove sanctions
Lawyers for Megrahi had launched a second appeal over his conviction – the first was unsuccessful – but it was revealed on Friday that the convicted killer has now applied to abandon this action.
His supporters are optimistic he will be freed within days because of his serious illness. The Crown Office insists the conviction is safe and that no decision on his release has yet been taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary.
[From an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter.]
Lockerbie bomber may be out next week
[The following are excerpts from an article published yesterday in The Times of Malta, before the announcement that Abdelbaset Megrahi had lodged a Minute of Abandonment of his appeal.]
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing could be freed on compassionate grounds next week, which means that his appeal, which will question the Maltese connection to the massacre, would be able to continue.
According to the BBC and Sky News, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, who is the only person ever convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, could be released next week from the Scottish prison where he is serving 27 years. (...)
Speaking to this newspaper, Robert Black, a former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial, welcomed the news.
"If it is indeed the case that Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release and returned to Libya before the beginning of Ramadan, I am delighted. I believe that he was wrongly convicted and should never have been in prison in the first place. But irrespective of his guilt or innocence, on simple humanitarian and compassionate grounds, he should be allowed to return to die in his homeland surrounded by his family and friends."
Professor Black was responsible for drawing up the framework for the trial, which was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law and which led to Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001.
But he has consistently criticised the outcome, and also finds holes in the theory that the bomb left Malta.
He said, it would be a tragedy if some murky back-channel deal between the Scottish (or UK) Government has been entered into for the appeal to be abandoned in return for compassionate release being granted. "There are suggestions that this may be the case. I am, however, reluctant to believe that the Scottish (or UK) government could sink to such depths."
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
The 57-year-old was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
His lawyer says it has spread to other parts of his body and is at an advanced stage, while his wife Aisha Megrahi told AFP earlier this year that he was "in danger of dying".
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing could be freed on compassionate grounds next week, which means that his appeal, which will question the Maltese connection to the massacre, would be able to continue.
According to the BBC and Sky News, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, who is the only person ever convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, could be released next week from the Scottish prison where he is serving 27 years. (...)
Speaking to this newspaper, Robert Black, a former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial, welcomed the news.
"If it is indeed the case that Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release and returned to Libya before the beginning of Ramadan, I am delighted. I believe that he was wrongly convicted and should never have been in prison in the first place. But irrespective of his guilt or innocence, on simple humanitarian and compassionate grounds, he should be allowed to return to die in his homeland surrounded by his family and friends."
Professor Black was responsible for drawing up the framework for the trial, which was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law and which led to Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001.
But he has consistently criticised the outcome, and also finds holes in the theory that the bomb left Malta.
He said, it would be a tragedy if some murky back-channel deal between the Scottish (or UK) Government has been entered into for the appeal to be abandoned in return for compassionate release being granted. "There are suggestions that this may be the case. I am, however, reluctant to believe that the Scottish (or UK) government could sink to such depths."
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
The 57-year-old was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
His lawyer says it has spread to other parts of his body and is at an advanced stage, while his wife Aisha Megrahi told AFP earlier this year that he was "in danger of dying".
Awkward questions over Lockerbie won't go away
There will be strenuous denials that any kind of deal has been done with the so-called Lockerbie bomber Abdul al-Megrahi whereby he agrees to drop his appeal against conviction in return for being allowed to return to Libya.
All the same, it will come as a great relief in government circles that the appeal case is unlikely to proceed – not just because of the awkward facts that might emerge but because of the enormous damage that would be done to the system if it was shown that Megrahi had been wrongly convicted.
The Justice Minister Jack Straw is old enough to know that we have a long and shameful tradition, where terrorism is concerned, of imprisoning the wrong people. And the notorious Irish cases in the 1970s and 80s wreaked havoc with the reputation of the police, the intelligence services and the judges.
The offence of which Megrahi was – almost certainly wrongly – convicted after a trial lasting six months before three distinguished Scottish judges was far more serious than anything the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were accused of doing. Resulting in the deaths of 280 innocent people, it was far and away the most serious act of terrorism in our history. So, what if Megrahi's appeal succeeded and it was shown that yet again the security forces and the judges had got it wrong – and this at a time when the Government is trying to introduce more and more draconian measures to deal with the supposed threat of terrorism?
Opposition to giving the police yet more powers would inevitably be boosted and the awkward question would be raised – if not Megrahi then who did it? The official hope, now that Megrahi has applied to drop his appeal, is that we can finally draw a line under Lockerbie and move on.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams, former editor of Private Eye, in today's edition of The Independent. The same newspaper has an article by Jerome Taylor headlined "Al-Megrahi 'pressured into abandoning appeal'".
The Scottish serious daily papers, The Herald and The Scotsman, as might be expected, have extensive coverage of the issue. The Herald's articles can be read here and here (and two letters to the editor here) and The Scotsman's here and here.]
All the same, it will come as a great relief in government circles that the appeal case is unlikely to proceed – not just because of the awkward facts that might emerge but because of the enormous damage that would be done to the system if it was shown that Megrahi had been wrongly convicted.
The Justice Minister Jack Straw is old enough to know that we have a long and shameful tradition, where terrorism is concerned, of imprisoning the wrong people. And the notorious Irish cases in the 1970s and 80s wreaked havoc with the reputation of the police, the intelligence services and the judges.
The offence of which Megrahi was – almost certainly wrongly – convicted after a trial lasting six months before three distinguished Scottish judges was far more serious than anything the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were accused of doing. Resulting in the deaths of 280 innocent people, it was far and away the most serious act of terrorism in our history. So, what if Megrahi's appeal succeeded and it was shown that yet again the security forces and the judges had got it wrong – and this at a time when the Government is trying to introduce more and more draconian measures to deal with the supposed threat of terrorism?
Opposition to giving the police yet more powers would inevitably be boosted and the awkward question would be raised – if not Megrahi then who did it? The official hope, now that Megrahi has applied to drop his appeal, is that we can finally draw a line under Lockerbie and move on.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams, former editor of Private Eye, in today's edition of The Independent. The same newspaper has an article by Jerome Taylor headlined "Al-Megrahi 'pressured into abandoning appeal'".
The Scottish serious daily papers, The Herald and The Scotsman, as might be expected, have extensive coverage of the issue. The Herald's articles can be read here and here (and two letters to the editor here) and The Scotsman's here and here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)