Following today's procedural hearing regarding the Lockerbie appeal, the Crown Office issued the following statement:
"The Crown's appeal against sentence is an entirely separate process from Mr Megrahi's appeals against conviction and sentence which have now been abandoned.
"As Crown Counsel outlined at today's hearing, the Lord Advocate has no part in the Scottish Government's consideration of prisoner transfer or compassionate release of Mr Megrahi. This reflects the Lord Advocate's position as the independent prosecutor.
"The Lord Advocate has not received any request from the Scottish Government to intimate whether the Crown's appeal against sentence will continue.
"Furthermore, the Lord Advocate has not received any information on Mr Megrahi's current medical condition that she would require to take into account in order to make such a decision. The Lord Advocate has always been prepared to give any request her full and prompt consideration."
[Note by RB: The Lord Advocate has known since 12 August, when Abdelbaset Megrahi's Minute of Abandonment was lodged in court, that his appeal was to be abandoned. She knew then the question of the Crown's appeal against sentence would become of vital importance (since prisoner transfer cannot be granted if there are ANY live proceedings involving the prisoner). Did the Lord Advocate then ask Mr Megrahi's legal representatives to make available to her any up-to-date medical reports that had been obtained? She did not. Her counsel's failure at today's hearing to be in a position to explain the Crown's attitude towards the sentence appeal clearly surprised and concerned the judges. It should concern everyone. But it is sadly typical of the Crown's Fabian tactics throughout the whole course of this sorry affair.]
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Leave to abandon granted
The High Court of Justiciary has granted leave to Abdelbaset Megrahi to abandon his appeal. The court (Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lord Eassie and Lady Paton) doubted whether leave was required, but granted it anyway.
Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi informed the court that her client's prostate cancer was highly aggressive, his condition (as certified by three independent consultants) was grave, and he was in considerable pain and distress. His absolute priority now was to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family. It was for that reason alone that he had instructed his lawyers to abandon his appeal.
The court raised with Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown the issue of the Crown's separate appeal against sentence. Mr Clancy stated that the Lord Advocate had not yet reached a decision on whether to abandon this appeal (without which prisoner transfer cannot take place) but would consider her position in the light of the court's decision on Mr Megrahi's Minute of Abandonment and would seek to secure that the timing of her decision did not impede any decision on prisoner transfer or its implementation.
The court announced its decision after retiring for ten minutes. The Lord Justice General announced that the court granted Mr Megrahi leave to abandon. He also stressed that it was of the utmost importance for the Lord Advocate to reach her decision speedily. If she decided to abandon that could be effected by written intimation to the court, without the need for a sitting of the court to be convened.
A procedural hearing was fixed for three weeks' time, to take place only if the Lord Advocate had not by then abandoned.
The Daily Record's account of today's proceedings can be read here and that of BBC News here.
Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi informed the court that her client's prostate cancer was highly aggressive, his condition (as certified by three independent consultants) was grave, and he was in considerable pain and distress. His absolute priority now was to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family. It was for that reason alone that he had instructed his lawyers to abandon his appeal.
The court raised with Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown the issue of the Crown's separate appeal against sentence. Mr Clancy stated that the Lord Advocate had not yet reached a decision on whether to abandon this appeal (without which prisoner transfer cannot take place) but would consider her position in the light of the court's decision on Mr Megrahi's Minute of Abandonment and would seek to secure that the timing of her decision did not impede any decision on prisoner transfer or its implementation.
The court announced its decision after retiring for ten minutes. The Lord Justice General announced that the court granted Mr Megrahi leave to abandon. He also stressed that it was of the utmost importance for the Lord Advocate to reach her decision speedily. If she decided to abandon that could be effected by written intimation to the court, without the need for a sitting of the court to be convened.
A procedural hearing was fixed for three weeks' time, to take place only if the Lord Advocate had not by then abandoned.
The Daily Record's account of today's proceedings can be read here and that of BBC News here.
A disastrous debut on the world stage
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times by its columnist and Scottish Editor, Magnus Linklater. It reads in part:]
It is hard to overstate the three issues at the heart of the Lockerbie affair. The first is compassion — for a man, who may be innocent, and is dying in prison. The second is justice — the search for truth about a deadly act of terrorism. The third is reputation — the probity and good name of a government seeking to balance all these against the need to do the right thing.
To sacrifice all three in the course of a week, while at the same time emerging as weak, indecisive, secretive and self-serving, is a quite spectacular achievement. Yet that is what the Nationalist administration in Scotland has succeeded in doing in the course of its first important appearance on the international stage.
In seeking to resolve the fate of the Lockerbie bomber, it has failed to show humanity, failed to uphold the judicial process and failed to demonstrate its ability to manage events in a fair and coherent manner. “Diplomacy,” said Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Prime Minister, “is about surviving till the next century — politics is about surviving until Friday.” On both counts it has floundered. (...)
The years roll by as a lengthy appeal process unwinds, each time attracting an accumulation of doubt as campaigners dig up claim and counterclaim, suggesting that the conviction was unsafe. Meanwhile, the man himself develops prostate cancer and is said to be close to death. The final appeal, his family say, may come too late. (...)
After indicating that he was “minded” to release the bomber on compassionate grounds, Mr MacAskill did something Macchiavelli would certainly have forbidden — he went into prison to see the man himself. Minister and terrorist face to face, a meeting that ensured that Mr MacAskill was no longer at arm’s length from the affair.
What did they say to each other? We do not know. But within days, it emerged that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi would indeed be released on compassionate grounds, and might well be back in Libya within a week — in time for Ramadan.
There were, of course, protests from American relatives, but those had been expected. The case would continue, they were told, even in the absence of the accused. But then, just as we were adjusting to this, the defence team announced that it was dropping his appeal.
This had the immediate effect of alienating not only those who had argued that al-Megrahi should stay in prison, but those who wanted him returned; they had always insisted that the case must go on so that his name would be cleared. The immediate supposition was that a deal had been done in that prison cell, perhaps to prevent embarrassing disclosures in the High Court. As for the rest of us, we mourned that the last chance of getting at the truth of this murky, contentious and unresolved mystery was now lost. (...)
It is the worst of all possible worlds. The SNP administration of Alex Salmond, which never loses an opportunity of scoring political points to boost its standing in the polls, has failed to demonstrate that, when it comes to the serious business of government, it is capable of rising to the occasion. That not only undermines its reputation as a party, it is a disservice to the nation that it claims to represent.
It is hard to overstate the three issues at the heart of the Lockerbie affair. The first is compassion — for a man, who may be innocent, and is dying in prison. The second is justice — the search for truth about a deadly act of terrorism. The third is reputation — the probity and good name of a government seeking to balance all these against the need to do the right thing.
To sacrifice all three in the course of a week, while at the same time emerging as weak, indecisive, secretive and self-serving, is a quite spectacular achievement. Yet that is what the Nationalist administration in Scotland has succeeded in doing in the course of its first important appearance on the international stage.
In seeking to resolve the fate of the Lockerbie bomber, it has failed to show humanity, failed to uphold the judicial process and failed to demonstrate its ability to manage events in a fair and coherent manner. “Diplomacy,” said Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Prime Minister, “is about surviving till the next century — politics is about surviving until Friday.” On both counts it has floundered. (...)
The years roll by as a lengthy appeal process unwinds, each time attracting an accumulation of doubt as campaigners dig up claim and counterclaim, suggesting that the conviction was unsafe. Meanwhile, the man himself develops prostate cancer and is said to be close to death. The final appeal, his family say, may come too late. (...)
After indicating that he was “minded” to release the bomber on compassionate grounds, Mr MacAskill did something Macchiavelli would certainly have forbidden — he went into prison to see the man himself. Minister and terrorist face to face, a meeting that ensured that Mr MacAskill was no longer at arm’s length from the affair.
What did they say to each other? We do not know. But within days, it emerged that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi would indeed be released on compassionate grounds, and might well be back in Libya within a week — in time for Ramadan.
There were, of course, protests from American relatives, but those had been expected. The case would continue, they were told, even in the absence of the accused. But then, just as we were adjusting to this, the defence team announced that it was dropping his appeal.
This had the immediate effect of alienating not only those who had argued that al-Megrahi should stay in prison, but those who wanted him returned; they had always insisted that the case must go on so that his name would be cleared. The immediate supposition was that a deal had been done in that prison cell, perhaps to prevent embarrassing disclosures in the High Court. As for the rest of us, we mourned that the last chance of getting at the truth of this murky, contentious and unresolved mystery was now lost. (...)
It is the worst of all possible worlds. The SNP administration of Alex Salmond, which never loses an opportunity of scoring political points to boost its standing in the polls, has failed to demonstrate that, when it comes to the serious business of government, it is capable of rising to the occasion. That not only undermines its reputation as a party, it is a disservice to the nation that it claims to represent.
Lockerbie bomber 'has been sending home belongings for past six weeks'
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
The Lockerbie bomber has been sending his possessions home for the past six weeks, it has been claimed, fuelling accusations that the decision to release him is a "done deal". (...)
Sources at Greenock Prison have said Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has been sending personal items back to Libya in anticipation of his release. (...)
Speculation has been rife that Mr MacAskill had made up his mind last week to send Megrahi home on compassionate release. It is claimed that the only man convicted of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December, 1988 over Lockerbie, claiming 270 lives, has just three months to live because he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill again insisted a decision had not been made. He said the minister received a final dossier from officials on Friday and had cleared his diary this week to make his decision. He said Mr MacAskill would attend Cabinet today in Aberdeen, but while the case may be discussed, it was "his decision alone".
The spokesman added that there would be a decision before the end of the month.
A spokesman for the Scottish Prison Service said it would not comment on individual inmates. However, a source said it was "not unusual for prisoners" to send items home if they expected to be released, but this did not mean that they necessarily were going home.
Last night, the Libyan charge d'affaires in London, Omar Jelban, renewed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing, saying Libya "has nothing to fear" from such an investigation.
[A letter headed "Fate of a dying man matters less than the search for truth about Lockerbie" is published in the same newspaper.
The report on the subject in today's edition of The Herald contains the following:
'The Herald understands that Megrahi, the Libyan suffering terminal prostate cancer who is serving his 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, will be released and allowed home before the end of the week. He could be flown to Tripoli before Ramadan begins on August 21.
'Calls, meanwhile, for the Scottish Parliament to be recalled from its summer break to discuss Megrahi's possible release were rejected last night.
'Holyrood Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson said: "I have weighed up all the factors very carefully and have taken the decision not to recall Parliament at this time." (...)
'Omar Jelban, Libya's charge d'affaires in London, 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.'
The Lockerbie bomber has been sending his possessions home for the past six weeks, it has been claimed, fuelling accusations that the decision to release him is a "done deal". (...)
Sources at Greenock Prison have said Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has been sending personal items back to Libya in anticipation of his release. (...)
Speculation has been rife that Mr MacAskill had made up his mind last week to send Megrahi home on compassionate release. It is claimed that the only man convicted of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December, 1988 over Lockerbie, claiming 270 lives, has just three months to live because he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill again insisted a decision had not been made. He said the minister received a final dossier from officials on Friday and had cleared his diary this week to make his decision. He said Mr MacAskill would attend Cabinet today in Aberdeen, but while the case may be discussed, it was "his decision alone".
The spokesman added that there would be a decision before the end of the month.
A spokesman for the Scottish Prison Service said it would not comment on individual inmates. However, a source said it was "not unusual for prisoners" to send items home if they expected to be released, but this did not mean that they necessarily were going home.
Last night, the Libyan charge d'affaires in London, Omar Jelban, renewed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing, saying Libya "has nothing to fear" from such an investigation.
[A letter headed "Fate of a dying man matters less than the search for truth about Lockerbie" is published in the same newspaper.
The report on the subject in today's edition of The Herald contains the following:
'The Herald understands that Megrahi, the Libyan suffering terminal prostate cancer who is serving his 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, will be released and allowed home before the end of the week. He could be flown to Tripoli before Ramadan begins on August 21.
'Calls, meanwhile, for the Scottish Parliament to be recalled from its summer break to discuss Megrahi's possible release were rejected last night.
'Holyrood Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson said: "I have weighed up all the factors very carefully and have taken the decision not to recall Parliament at this time." (...)
'Omar Jelban, Libya's charge d'affaires in London, 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.'
Monday, 17 August 2009
Where is Salmond on the Megrahi affair?
[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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)