The US State Department has been told that a Libyan man serving a life sentence in Scotland for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people will be released, CNN reported Wednesday. CNN cited senior State Department officials as saying that Basset al-Megrahi, 57, would be released by Scottish authorities on compassionate grounds. Al-Megrahi has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer and was not expected to live through the end of the year.
[The above is the first paragraph of a report on the Earth Times website.]
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Megrahi to be released within hours
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will be released on Thursday on compassionate grounds.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as the paper stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing which killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan Government.
A public announcement is expected at 1pm (BST) - 8am Eastern standard time - on Thursday from Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds. (...)
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan Minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi usually flies to the UK in a private jet.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We have a strong justice system in Scotland and people can be assured that the Justice Secretary's decisions have been reached on the basis of clear evidence and on no other factors."
[The above are excerpts from a report just posted on the heraldscotland website. I suspect that the author is The Herald's chief reporter, Lucy Adams.
The STV News website has a report that contains the following sentence:
"Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has been released from Greenock Prison on compassionate grounds, STV News sources have learned." [The sentence has since been altered to read "will be released".]
Under the headline "Police stage Megrahi departure rehearsal via Prestwick airport", Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has this afternoon posted an article containing the following sentences:
'A police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a mock target vehicle with blacked out windows was undertaken last night between Greenock and Prestwick airport. It is understood the exercise was carried out as a rehearsal to prepare for the flight of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi to Libya, understood to be taking place imminently.
'The convoy were sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow.']
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as the paper stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing which killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan Government.
A public announcement is expected at 1pm (BST) - 8am Eastern standard time - on Thursday from Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds. (...)
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan Minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi usually flies to the UK in a private jet.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We have a strong justice system in Scotland and people can be assured that the Justice Secretary's decisions have been reached on the basis of clear evidence and on no other factors."
[The above are excerpts from a report just posted on the heraldscotland website. I suspect that the author is The Herald's chief reporter, Lucy Adams.
The STV News website has a report that contains the following sentence:
"Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has been released from Greenock Prison on compassionate grounds, STV News sources have learned." [The sentence has since been altered to read "will be released".]
Under the headline "Police stage Megrahi departure rehearsal via Prestwick airport", Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has this afternoon posted an article containing the following sentences:
'A police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a mock target vehicle with blacked out windows was undertaken last night between Greenock and Prestwick airport. It is understood the exercise was carried out as a rehearsal to prepare for the flight of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi to Libya, understood to be taking place imminently.
'The convoy were sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow.']
Announcement of decision on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi
[What follows is the text of a "media calling notice" just issued by the Scottish Government.]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has informed families and other interested parties that he has reached his decisions on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release in relation to Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, and will announce his decisions on Thursday August 20, 2009.
This fulfils the Justice Secretary's pledge to inform families on both sides of the Atlantic, in advance, of the timing of his public announcement.
The statement will take place at 1pm on Thursday (8am Eastern Standard Time).
Mr MacAskill's statement will be followed by an opportunity for questions and one-to-one broadcast interviews.
Media must notify the Scottish Government communications department in advance and advise of the names and outlets of those who will attend. These should be sent to communicationsjustice@scotland.gsi.gov.uk by 11:00 on Thursday, August 20, 2009. In addition media representatives must bring proof of identity to gain admission.
Details
Thursday, August 20, 2009
13:00 Mr MacAskill announces decisions in relation to the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release, and takes questions.
13:30 Broadcast interviews available
14:00 Mr MacAskill departs
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has informed families and other interested parties that he has reached his decisions on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release in relation to Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, and will announce his decisions on Thursday August 20, 2009.
This fulfils the Justice Secretary's pledge to inform families on both sides of the Atlantic, in advance, of the timing of his public announcement.
The statement will take place at 1pm on Thursday (8am Eastern Standard Time).
Mr MacAskill's statement will be followed by an opportunity for questions and one-to-one broadcast interviews.
Media must notify the Scottish Government communications department in advance and advise of the names and outlets of those who will attend. These should be sent to communicationsjustice@scotland.gsi.gov.uk by 11:00 on Thursday, August 20, 2009. In addition media representatives must bring proof of identity to gain admission.
Details
Thursday, August 20, 2009
13:00 Mr MacAskill announces decisions in relation to the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release, and takes questions.
13:30 Broadcast interviews available
14:00 Mr MacAskill departs
Don't forget Lockerbie
The families of those who died in the bombing of Pan Am 103 will continue searching for the truth. First, we need an inquiry
One of the first questions asked of me by every journalist and reporter covering the story about Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is: why is there such an apparent divide between the US and British relatives? Why do they believe he is guilty, and we remain to be convinced? Some imply that doubts about Megrahi's guilt by some UK representatives put the interests of a mass murderer before those of justice, a folly of the woolly liberal. This is far from the truth and I think the reasons for the differences in view are more complex.
Within days of the bombing, the then transport secretary, Paul Channon, stood in the House of Commons and obscured the truth about the number of credible warnings against US aviation. Our suspicions of a cover-up began and have remained to this day. Within three months, the UK families formed a support group, with the motto "The truth must be known". By then, the families knew that we would have a hard fight ahead to get to that truth.
The bombing of Pan Am 103 is often referred to as an American disaster. Yet it killed people from 21 countries, 47 of them British and Irish. I believe that the fact that it happened on our soil leaves the British relatives feeling a sense of responsibility for all the victims. The bomb was loaded on to the plane at a British airport and it was our government's responsibility first to protect travellers from such an attack, and second to understand how and why it was allowed to happen and ensure that lessons were learned for air travellers around the world. And finally, to seek and bring to justice those responsible for carrying out the attack.
UK families took this responsibility within the context of a country that has experienced terrorism first-hand for many years, and has also seen numerous miscarriages of justice where innocent people were convicted and jailed for terrorist crimes they did not commit. So it is no surprise that many British relatives have a scrupulous desire to ensure this does not happen again. If Pan Am 103 had taken off from JFK airport, we don't know what difference this would have made to the way the UK families have responded.
I am not arguing Megrahi's innocence and I feel that his decision to exercise his right to silence in the original trial did nothing to strengthen his defence. His co-accused was found innocent, a strong outcome in a Scottish court, where there is the option of a "not proven" verdict. I welcomed the decision of the Scottish criminal cases review commission to refer Megrahi's case back to the high court for appeal, an opportunity for us to hear any evidence that might get us nearer to the truth. The abandonment of the appeal is the worst possible outcome, as that evidence will now not be heard. But whatever his guilt or innocence, one thing everyone agrees on, including the court, is that he did not act alone.
I find it astounding that the UK government seems to have washed its hands of the whole affair and passed on responsibility to Scotland. Jack Straw's involvement includes stints as home secretary, foreign secretary and justice secretary, and in each of these posts he has had dealings with UK relatives. It was he who concluded the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiations with Libya, started by Tony Blair. Yet, when we contacted him about the impact this would have on the families, he said it was a Scottish government responsibility.
Why was Megrahi not excluded from the agreement? Now, the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has to decide whether to repatriate Megrahi or to release him on compassionate grounds. It is extraordinary when such a momentous decision is to be made by a man with no background in the case. I understand why US senators are putting pressure on MacAskill not to release Megrahi, but wish they would also put pressure on the UK government to hold an independent inquiry that might establish some of the answers to the bigger questions: who ordered the bombing? What was the motivation for it? Why was it not prevented? These answers must be sought whatever Megrahi's guilt or innocence.
The primary reason given by Straw and others in government through the years is that such an inquiry might prejudice the criminal process. Now, that argument has no validity. Westminster must not wash its hands of Lockerbie. One step the UK government could take is to follow the example of the Hillsborough case, by releasing all official papers (now, more than 20 years after the bombing).
We will resolutely continue our search for the truth. If the UK government fails to hold an inquiry, we will lobby the Scottish government do so and ensure that all responsible British government ministers and officials are called to account.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece by Pamela Dix, a relative of one of the British victims of the Lockerbie disaster, on The Guardian's Comment is free website.]
One of the first questions asked of me by every journalist and reporter covering the story about Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is: why is there such an apparent divide between the US and British relatives? Why do they believe he is guilty, and we remain to be convinced? Some imply that doubts about Megrahi's guilt by some UK representatives put the interests of a mass murderer before those of justice, a folly of the woolly liberal. This is far from the truth and I think the reasons for the differences in view are more complex.
Within days of the bombing, the then transport secretary, Paul Channon, stood in the House of Commons and obscured the truth about the number of credible warnings against US aviation. Our suspicions of a cover-up began and have remained to this day. Within three months, the UK families formed a support group, with the motto "The truth must be known". By then, the families knew that we would have a hard fight ahead to get to that truth.
The bombing of Pan Am 103 is often referred to as an American disaster. Yet it killed people from 21 countries, 47 of them British and Irish. I believe that the fact that it happened on our soil leaves the British relatives feeling a sense of responsibility for all the victims. The bomb was loaded on to the plane at a British airport and it was our government's responsibility first to protect travellers from such an attack, and second to understand how and why it was allowed to happen and ensure that lessons were learned for air travellers around the world. And finally, to seek and bring to justice those responsible for carrying out the attack.
UK families took this responsibility within the context of a country that has experienced terrorism first-hand for many years, and has also seen numerous miscarriages of justice where innocent people were convicted and jailed for terrorist crimes they did not commit. So it is no surprise that many British relatives have a scrupulous desire to ensure this does not happen again. If Pan Am 103 had taken off from JFK airport, we don't know what difference this would have made to the way the UK families have responded.
I am not arguing Megrahi's innocence and I feel that his decision to exercise his right to silence in the original trial did nothing to strengthen his defence. His co-accused was found innocent, a strong outcome in a Scottish court, where there is the option of a "not proven" verdict. I welcomed the decision of the Scottish criminal cases review commission to refer Megrahi's case back to the high court for appeal, an opportunity for us to hear any evidence that might get us nearer to the truth. The abandonment of the appeal is the worst possible outcome, as that evidence will now not be heard. But whatever his guilt or innocence, one thing everyone agrees on, including the court, is that he did not act alone.
I find it astounding that the UK government seems to have washed its hands of the whole affair and passed on responsibility to Scotland. Jack Straw's involvement includes stints as home secretary, foreign secretary and justice secretary, and in each of these posts he has had dealings with UK relatives. It was he who concluded the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiations with Libya, started by Tony Blair. Yet, when we contacted him about the impact this would have on the families, he said it was a Scottish government responsibility.
Why was Megrahi not excluded from the agreement? Now, the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has to decide whether to repatriate Megrahi or to release him on compassionate grounds. It is extraordinary when such a momentous decision is to be made by a man with no background in the case. I understand why US senators are putting pressure on MacAskill not to release Megrahi, but wish they would also put pressure on the UK government to hold an independent inquiry that might establish some of the answers to the bigger questions: who ordered the bombing? What was the motivation for it? Why was it not prevented? These answers must be sought whatever Megrahi's guilt or innocence.
The primary reason given by Straw and others in government through the years is that such an inquiry might prejudice the criminal process. Now, that argument has no validity. Westminster must not wash its hands of Lockerbie. One step the UK government could take is to follow the example of the Hillsborough case, by releasing all official papers (now, more than 20 years after the bombing).
We will resolutely continue our search for the truth. If the UK government fails to hold an inquiry, we will lobby the Scottish government do so and ensure that all responsible British government ministers and officials are called to account.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece by Pamela Dix, a relative of one of the British victims of the Lockerbie disaster, on The Guardian's Comment is free website.]
'Megrahi doesn't have long to live'
A cancer specialist has called for an "urgent" decision on the future of the Lockerbie bomber before his condition worsens further.
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month.
[A report from the Press Association news agency.
The Scotsman has just published a report on its website. It reads in part:]
A cancer specialist called today for an "urgent" decision on the future of the Lockerbie bomber before his condition worsens further.
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month. (...)
Prof Sikora, medical director of the independent cancer care network CancerPartnersUK, said he was asked by the Libyan government to provide an independent medical assessment of Megrahi.
He visited him on July 28 with Professor Ibrahim Sherif from the Tripoli medical centre, Libya and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul general in Scotland.
"We were shown great courtesy by the prison staff and especially the prison doctor with whom we discussed medical details and reviewed records," he said.
"Despite rumours in the media to the contrary, Mr Al Megrahi has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread widely.
"Although he initially responded to treatment, this is no longer working. We believe he has only a very short period of time to live."
The professor went on: "We found him to be a highly intelligent, well-educated and deeply religious person who wishes to spend his last few weeks with his wife and five children.
"We believe an urgent decision on his future is needed before any further medical deterioration takes place."
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month.
[A report from the Press Association news agency.
The Scotsman has just published a report on its website. It reads in part:]
A cancer specialist called today for an "urgent" decision on the future of the Lockerbie bomber before his condition worsens further.
Professor Karol Sikora, who visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison, said the Libyan had an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer which was no longer responding to treatment.
"We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Prof Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month. (...)
Prof Sikora, medical director of the independent cancer care network CancerPartnersUK, said he was asked by the Libyan government to provide an independent medical assessment of Megrahi.
He visited him on July 28 with Professor Ibrahim Sherif from the Tripoli medical centre, Libya and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul general in Scotland.
"We were shown great courtesy by the prison staff and especially the prison doctor with whom we discussed medical details and reviewed records," he said.
"Despite rumours in the media to the contrary, Mr Al Megrahi has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread widely.
"Although he initially responded to treatment, this is no longer working. We believe he has only a very short period of time to live."
The professor went on: "We found him to be a highly intelligent, well-educated and deeply religious person who wishes to spend his last few weeks with his wife and five children.
"We believe an urgent decision on his future is needed before any further medical deterioration takes place."
Don't dishonour Lockerbie victims
If Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is released from prison, it will be an insult to my brother and all who died in the Lockerbie bombing
Imagine if one of the September 11 hijackers had lived, that he was fairly tried, convicted and sentenced to a lengthy jail term. Then, after just a few years, under an agreement with the Afghan government, we sent him back to serve out his term with the Taliban under Osama bin Laden.
Although it seems almost impossible, a painfully similar scenario is playing out in the Scotland. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – the terrorist convicted in the Lockerbie bombing – may soon be released by the Scottish government and handed over to Libya, the very government that plotted this cowardly mass murder.
The evidence against Megrahi is overwhelming and has withstood more than two fervent appeals. He was a member of Libyan intelligence travelling under a false passport to Malta on the day of the bombing, and lied about it more than once. Any rational person reviewing the evidence would conclude that Megrahi is guilty. Even more damning, the court's conviction clearly stated that Megrahi committed the murder for "furtherance of Libyan intelligence". There has been no regime change or democratic revolution. And yet the Scottish government is eager to return this murderer to his dictator – Muammar Gaddafi – a man who has gone on the record as hating all things western.
The Pan Am bombing was the largest single terrorist attack against the United States or the United Kingdom prior to September 11. Megrahi has served less than one month in prison for each person he killed. After all the years of fighting terrorism on their own soil, you would think that the UK wouldn't be so quick to send a terrorist back into the loving arms of the people who masterminded the deaths of so many innocents.
Fine, send him back, but make sure he's in a pine box before you do so.
There are rumours that Megrahi is dying of prostate cancer, and that the basis of the most recent appeal is one of mercy. I have never heard of a prisoner arranging a lesser sentence due to cancer, nor do I care if he dies in his cell. Where was the mercy when Megrahi killed 270 people? Didn't those victims deserve a life long enough to contract cancer?
There are also rumours that he may be innocent, but I fear those rumours are driven by a psychological hysteria brought on by grief. Some family members thought they would feel better once a man was convicted, but their emptiness remained so they created conspiracy theories and rumours. It gave them another rabbit to chase, and I feel sorry for them. However, the evidence is clear and overwhelming. And, this week, even Megrahi himself abandoned the appeal. If he is really innocent and actually going to die soon, why would he not want to clear his name?
But here is the worst part: I fear we will have dishonoured the victims if we let him walk away. I think of the children in Lockerbie, brimming with excitement four days before Christmas. How could the Scottish government send their murderer home to "die in peace"? What peace was there that chilly night in December more than 20 years ago? And, how will we all feel when Megrahi is given a hero's welcome back in Libya?
People of Scotland: he attacked your home, your children, your way of life. Please don't let them dishonour your country in this way.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece in The Guardian by Brian Flynn, the brother of one of the US victims of the destruction of Pan Am 103.
I make no comment, other than to say, as I have done before, that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the evidence against Megrahi "has withstood more than two fervent appeals". There has to date been only one appeal and that appeal did not consider the sufficiency of the evidence against Megrahi or whether any reasonable court could have convicted him on the basis of it.
The appeal judges in that one appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The true position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."]
Imagine if one of the September 11 hijackers had lived, that he was fairly tried, convicted and sentenced to a lengthy jail term. Then, after just a few years, under an agreement with the Afghan government, we sent him back to serve out his term with the Taliban under Osama bin Laden.
Although it seems almost impossible, a painfully similar scenario is playing out in the Scotland. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – the terrorist convicted in the Lockerbie bombing – may soon be released by the Scottish government and handed over to Libya, the very government that plotted this cowardly mass murder.
The evidence against Megrahi is overwhelming and has withstood more than two fervent appeals. He was a member of Libyan intelligence travelling under a false passport to Malta on the day of the bombing, and lied about it more than once. Any rational person reviewing the evidence would conclude that Megrahi is guilty. Even more damning, the court's conviction clearly stated that Megrahi committed the murder for "furtherance of Libyan intelligence". There has been no regime change or democratic revolution. And yet the Scottish government is eager to return this murderer to his dictator – Muammar Gaddafi – a man who has gone on the record as hating all things western.
The Pan Am bombing was the largest single terrorist attack against the United States or the United Kingdom prior to September 11. Megrahi has served less than one month in prison for each person he killed. After all the years of fighting terrorism on their own soil, you would think that the UK wouldn't be so quick to send a terrorist back into the loving arms of the people who masterminded the deaths of so many innocents.
Fine, send him back, but make sure he's in a pine box before you do so.
There are rumours that Megrahi is dying of prostate cancer, and that the basis of the most recent appeal is one of mercy. I have never heard of a prisoner arranging a lesser sentence due to cancer, nor do I care if he dies in his cell. Where was the mercy when Megrahi killed 270 people? Didn't those victims deserve a life long enough to contract cancer?
There are also rumours that he may be innocent, but I fear those rumours are driven by a psychological hysteria brought on by grief. Some family members thought they would feel better once a man was convicted, but their emptiness remained so they created conspiracy theories and rumours. It gave them another rabbit to chase, and I feel sorry for them. However, the evidence is clear and overwhelming. And, this week, even Megrahi himself abandoned the appeal. If he is really innocent and actually going to die soon, why would he not want to clear his name?
But here is the worst part: I fear we will have dishonoured the victims if we let him walk away. I think of the children in Lockerbie, brimming with excitement four days before Christmas. How could the Scottish government send their murderer home to "die in peace"? What peace was there that chilly night in December more than 20 years ago? And, how will we all feel when Megrahi is given a hero's welcome back in Libya?
People of Scotland: he attacked your home, your children, your way of life. Please don't let them dishonour your country in this way.
[The above is the text of an opinion piece in The Guardian by Brian Flynn, the brother of one of the US victims of the destruction of Pan Am 103.
I make no comment, other than to say, as I have done before, that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the evidence against Megrahi "has withstood more than two fervent appeals". There has to date been only one appeal and that appeal did not consider the sufficiency of the evidence against Megrahi or whether any reasonable court could have convicted him on the basis of it.
The appeal judges in that one appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The true position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."]
Hillary Clinton's remarks about repatriation
[The following is taken from the transcript on the Department of State's website of the Secretary of State's press conference yesterday on the occasion of her meeting with the Foreign Minister of Colombia:]
MODERATOR: The next question, Kim Ghattas from BBC.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much. I have two questions, if I may briefly. The first one is about Lockerbie. I was wondering how concerned you were about the fact that the man who was convicted for killing more than 180 Americans over Lockerbie may be released, and how much pressure are you putting on the Scottish authorities to convince them to not release him? (...)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well as to the first question, the United States has made its views known over a number of months and we continue to make the same point that we think it is inappropriate and very much against the wishes of the family members of the victims who suffered such grievous losses with the actions that led to the bombing of the airline. And we have made our views known to the Libyan Government as well.
I take this very personally because I knew a lot of the family members of those who were lost, because there was a large contingent from Syracuse University. So during the time that I had the great honor of representing New York, I knew a lot of these families. I talked with them about what a horror they experienced. And I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime. We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so, and hope that they will not. (...)
MODERATOR: The next question, Kim Ghattas from BBC.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much. I have two questions, if I may briefly. The first one is about Lockerbie. I was wondering how concerned you were about the fact that the man who was convicted for killing more than 180 Americans over Lockerbie may be released, and how much pressure are you putting on the Scottish authorities to convince them to not release him? (...)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well as to the first question, the United States has made its views known over a number of months and we continue to make the same point that we think it is inappropriate and very much against the wishes of the family members of the victims who suffered such grievous losses with the actions that led to the bombing of the airline. And we have made our views known to the Libyan Government as well.
I take this very personally because I knew a lot of the family members of those who were lost, because there was a large contingent from Syracuse University. So during the time that I had the great honor of representing New York, I knew a lot of these families. I talked with them about what a horror they experienced. And I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime. We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so, and hope that they will not. (...)
Ministers rushed through Lockerbie treaty, say MPs
MPs and peers claim that treaty with Libya was not allowed proper scrutiny, to protect business interests
Ministers [of the UK government, not the Scottish government] have been accused of rushing through a treaty with Libya that could allow the Lockerbie bomber to be repatriated, as part of an attempt to protest British oil interests.
Senior MPs and peers said that ministers had overlooked human rights in their haste to ratify the agreement. There are signs that a decision on the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be made in the next few days. (...)
MPs and peers on the joint human rights committee have said that they were denied the chance to scrutinise the Prisoner Transfer Agreement properly as it was rushed through by ministers to protect business interests in Libya. It was signed by Britain and Libya last November and ratified on 29 April this year.
Jack Straw, the justice secretary [in the UK, not Scottish, government], told the committee in a letter on 12 March: "A delay beyond April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude these agreements."
Members of the committee have been critical of the way the treaty was handled.
The Earl of Onslow, a Conservative member of the committee, told the Guardian: "This is not a good way to deal with matters of justice. One shouldn't allow whether one has a right to drill for oil in the Gulf of Sidra to have any influence on what is essentially a criminal matter."
Britain has built extensive business interests in Libya after Tony Blair visited Colonel Gadaffi in March 2004, officially ending his pariah status.
[From an article on the website of the New Statesman.]
Ministers [of the UK government, not the Scottish government] have been accused of rushing through a treaty with Libya that could allow the Lockerbie bomber to be repatriated, as part of an attempt to protest British oil interests.
Senior MPs and peers said that ministers had overlooked human rights in their haste to ratify the agreement. There are signs that a decision on the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be made in the next few days. (...)
MPs and peers on the joint human rights committee have said that they were denied the chance to scrutinise the Prisoner Transfer Agreement properly as it was rushed through by ministers to protect business interests in Libya. It was signed by Britain and Libya last November and ratified on 29 April this year.
Jack Straw, the justice secretary [in the UK, not Scottish, government], told the committee in a letter on 12 March: "A delay beyond April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude these agreements."
Members of the committee have been critical of the way the treaty was handled.
The Earl of Onslow, a Conservative member of the committee, told the Guardian: "This is not a good way to deal with matters of justice. One shouldn't allow whether one has a right to drill for oil in the Gulf of Sidra to have any influence on what is essentially a criminal matter."
Britain has built extensive business interests in Libya after Tony Blair visited Colonel Gadaffi in March 2004, officially ending his pariah status.
[From an article on the website of the New Statesman.]
Letters to the editor
A letter from Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West in The Guardian:
You give no details of the weakness of the decision against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie outrage (Transatlantic split over plans to free Libyan jailed for Lockerbie bombing, 14 August). The US and Britain violated international law by ignoring the Montreal Convention of 1971, the principal legal instrument in the case, which stipulated that the two suspects be tried in Libya.
That the subsequent, illegal court proceedings did not establish Megrahi's guilt beyond reasonable doubt is well shown by Lord Sutherland's own judicial summation: "On the matter of identification [by key witness Tony Gauci] … there are undoubtedly problems … In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications … In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
Before the trial, Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon, and put up at the Hilton hotel in Glasgow – none of which was revealed to the judges in the Zeist court. Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University said he knew of no other Scottish murder trial witness being taken on fishing trips by police. Nor were the judges told that on the day of the bombing there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area. The court verdict was a shameful political verdict under US pressure.
A letter from Iain A D Mann in The Herald:
Roger Terrett is almost completely right (Letters, August 18). First, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will be returned to Libya within days; secondly, there will be no appeal hearing and no public inquiry; thirdly, the UK and US governments and security services are determined to prevent the truth coming out. But Mr Terrett is wrong to accuse Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill of dithering.
Late last Thursday evening, the BBC confidently reported that Megrahi was to be released on compassionate grounds within a few days. Where did this leak come from? Surely not from the Scottish Government, as this would gain nothing and only pile even more pressure on Mr MacAskill. The only other likely sources are the UK government or one of the Scottish opposition parties.
The early leak gave these parties all weekend to build up a frenzy of feigned fury about being denied information and to demand a statement from the Justice Secretary and even the recall of the Scottish Parliament.
But Mr MacAskill did not receive the final reports from the prison governor and expert medical opinion until the weekend, and needed time to consider these. The leaked news also gave time for Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and a group of senators to attempt to influence a Scottish judicial matter that was none of their business.
Megrahi, who has consistently maintained his innocence, decided to withdraw his second appeal against conviction and has had his application to do so accepted by the High Court in Edinburgh - despite the fact a release on compassionate grounds was not conditional on this. Why did he change his mind abruptly, just when it seemed he could have his transfer to Libya and the appeal process continued? Was he leaned upon or given false advice? Again, we do not know.
The result is that the six serious grounds for concern identified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding some of the evidence given, and evidence possibly deliberately withheld, at his original trial will never be aired or examined forensically in court. Who gains from this? The answer is obvious: the UK and US governments and their intelligence services, who have clearly been up to their eyes in this affair ever since the original accusations against Syria and Iran and the known terrorist el Talb were mysteriously abandoned and the focus was switched to Libya.
It is deeply worrying that our own and other democratically elected governments appear ready to manipulate, distort and conceal information, and to interfere with the due processes of law to protect underhand activities.
You give no details of the weakness of the decision against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie outrage (Transatlantic split over plans to free Libyan jailed for Lockerbie bombing, 14 August). The US and Britain violated international law by ignoring the Montreal Convention of 1971, the principal legal instrument in the case, which stipulated that the two suspects be tried in Libya.
That the subsequent, illegal court proceedings did not establish Megrahi's guilt beyond reasonable doubt is well shown by Lord Sutherland's own judicial summation: "On the matter of identification [by key witness Tony Gauci] … there are undoubtedly problems … In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications … In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
Before the trial, Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon, and put up at the Hilton hotel in Glasgow – none of which was revealed to the judges in the Zeist court. Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University said he knew of no other Scottish murder trial witness being taken on fishing trips by police. Nor were the judges told that on the day of the bombing there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area. The court verdict was a shameful political verdict under US pressure.
A letter from Iain A D Mann in The Herald:
Roger Terrett is almost completely right (Letters, August 18). First, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will be returned to Libya within days; secondly, there will be no appeal hearing and no public inquiry; thirdly, the UK and US governments and security services are determined to prevent the truth coming out. But Mr Terrett is wrong to accuse Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill of dithering.
Late last Thursday evening, the BBC confidently reported that Megrahi was to be released on compassionate grounds within a few days. Where did this leak come from? Surely not from the Scottish Government, as this would gain nothing and only pile even more pressure on Mr MacAskill. The only other likely sources are the UK government or one of the Scottish opposition parties.
The early leak gave these parties all weekend to build up a frenzy of feigned fury about being denied information and to demand a statement from the Justice Secretary and even the recall of the Scottish Parliament.
But Mr MacAskill did not receive the final reports from the prison governor and expert medical opinion until the weekend, and needed time to consider these. The leaked news also gave time for Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and a group of senators to attempt to influence a Scottish judicial matter that was none of their business.
Megrahi, who has consistently maintained his innocence, decided to withdraw his second appeal against conviction and has had his application to do so accepted by the High Court in Edinburgh - despite the fact a release on compassionate grounds was not conditional on this. Why did he change his mind abruptly, just when it seemed he could have his transfer to Libya and the appeal process continued? Was he leaned upon or given false advice? Again, we do not know.
The result is that the six serious grounds for concern identified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding some of the evidence given, and evidence possibly deliberately withheld, at his original trial will never be aired or examined forensically in court. Who gains from this? The answer is obvious: the UK and US governments and their intelligence services, who have clearly been up to their eyes in this affair ever since the original accusations against Syria and Iran and the known terrorist el Talb were mysteriously abandoned and the focus was switched to Libya.
It is deeply worrying that our own and other democratically elected governments appear ready to manipulate, distort and conceal information, and to interfere with the due processes of law to protect underhand activities.
Media reaction to abandonment of appeal
Excerpts from Lucy Adams's report in The Herald:
Megrahi's defence team revealed that he made the decision to drop the case because he believed it would speed up the decision to allow him to return to Libya.
The Herald understands that Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, will allow Megrahi to return to Tripoli later this week on compassionate grounds. Ramadan begins on Friday and there is concern that he would not survive the strict fasting regime involved while in prison.
Seven senior US Senators yesterday wrote to the Justice Secretary to oppose such a move. They include leading Democrats John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
However, a Libyan judge, who was in court yesterday as an "observer" to the hearing, said he should be allowed to return home to his family.
Honorary Justice Hamdi Fannoush said outside the courtroom that dropping the case was "not in the interests of justice".
Mr Fannoush said: "People want to know what happened but this closes the door on that opportunity.
"Megrahi wanted to clear his name in court but after trying every possible way of getting home to see his family, he felt forced to make this sacrifice.
"In Libya everyone is talking about this. They believe he is innocent and cannot understand why he is still not home when he is so ill. Judicially nothing more can be done now other than a public inquiry." (...)
Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge who was sitting with Lord Eassie and Lady Paton, said it was "of the utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini makes an early decision on whether she intends to insist upon the appeal.
The judge said the court urged her to reach a decision on that matter without undue delay. If she has not dropped the appeal against the length of sentence there will be another procedural hearing in three weeks. Ronnie Clancy, QC for the Crown, said she had to consider the public interest.
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the bombing, said the outcome was "more or less what we expected". He went on: "It's a sad day really. It's the worst possible decision for the families because we lose the opportunity to hear evidence that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought was worth putting forward."
Mr Mosey said none of the big questions about Lockerbie had been answered.
"We are back where we started 21 years ago, asking for a wide-reaching independent inquiry into all aspects of this disaster," he said. (...)
Christine Grahame, a backbench SNP MSP who has visited Megrahi in prison, said outside court it was "extraordinary" that the Crown had not dropped its own appeal against Megrahi's sentence.
"The Crown was not prepared today to say whether they would drop their appeal." she said. "We had the extraordinary thing of the Crown saying they'd not seen the medical evidence."
She went on: "They have known this was coming before the court and I hope that within the next 24 hours they lodge something dropping their appeal."
Excerpts from David Maddox's report in The Scotsman:
Alex Salmond has given the strongest indication yet that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison, by insisting the decision would not be swayed by a show of strength from the United States.
Speaking after the receipt of a letter from several high-profile US senators, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, the First Minister said: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."
In the letter, received on the day Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi formally dropped his appeal, the senators urged justice secretary Kenny MacAskill not to allow the bomber to return to Libya. It followed similar moves from US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former presidential candidate John McCain. Last night in Washington, Mrs Clinton issued a strongly-worded plea to keep al-Megrahi in prison. "I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime," she said. "We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not." (...)
Megrahi could be returned to Libya on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer agreement.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision had been made and issued a strong vote of confidence in the justice secretary, who has been under fire over the past week for his handling of the issue, following leaks suggesting Megrahi is to be released.
Mr Salmond said: "I can also say that a final decision has not been taken by the justice secretary – he only received his final advice at the weekend. I'm absolutely confident if there is one person in Scotland I would absolutely trust to make the right decision for the right reasons, it's Kenny MacAskill."
He also tried to quash suggestions that the dropping of Megrahi's appeal had anything to do with a meeting between the convicted bomber and Mr MacAskill.
"What I can say is, the Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal," he said.
The First Minister's intervention has been widely perceived as an effort to regain some control over an issue on which his administration has been accused of losing its grip.
A leading article in The Guardian headed "Lockerbie case: the fix and the facts":
After a short hearing in Edinburgh yesterday, Scottish judges accepted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's application to drop his appeal against his conviction and life sentence for the Lockerbie bombing. As Lord Hamilton implied in his judgment, the court had little choice once Megrahi had decided to withdraw. The upshot is that, through no fault of their own, the judges gave the impression that justice had been relegated to a walk-on role in a well-orchestrated international political fix. Whatever the intentions of those involved or the requirements of compassion towards a dying man, that outcome leaves the Lockerbie families looking like the neglected victims of a stitch-up and the rule of law looking like an afterthought.
Even now, with the way clearing for Megrahi's early release, the decision that faces Scotland's justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is not straightforward. He has the authority to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds because of his cancer. Or he has the option of allowing him to be returned to serve out his time in a Libyan jail under the terms of an agreement between the UK and Libyan governments. There are other options too. But the underlying problem about the Lockerbie case is the same as always – the mismatch between the immensity of a crime that resulted in 270 deaths and the imperfections of the search for the truth about what happened. Exactly where Megrahi fits into the elusive story is not absolutely clear. Until yesterday, his lawyers had worked tirelessly to argue that he played no real role. All along, there have been parallel legal and political universes. As the saga has unwound, the facts have become less watertight and a fear has grown both of an injustice against Megrahi and, at least as importantly, the possibility that the outrage against Pan Am flight 103 might have been state-sponsored in a way that remains concealed from the courts.
In such circumstances, any release of Megrahi by a politician rather than by a court inevitably causes misgivings Рand worse Рwhatever the motivation and however scrupulous the process. As a rule, ministers should not be asked to do the work of judges. They inevitably concern themselves with issues like raison d'̩tat, party advantage, self-promotion and press reaction as much as dispensing justice or maintaining the rule of law. Mr MacAskill should certainly have kept quiet about his intentions until he had decided what to do. Instead he allowed the different interest groups to bid for his vote. The Lockerbie case has always involved political judgments as well as legal ones. Releasing Megrahi may indeed be compassionate and the least worst option in the current circumstances. But it is a bad outcome to a bad case nonetheless. Justice has not been done.
Excerpts from Charlene Sweeney's report in The Times:
The High Court in Edinburgh helped to clear the way for the Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya yesterday when it granted his application to abandon his appeal against conviction.
The White House responded by declaring that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi should remain in Scotland to serve out his life sentence. Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s spokesman, said: “It’s the policy of this Administration . . . that this individual should serve out his term where he’s serving it right now.”
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, called the Justice Secretary last week to insist that the Libyan serve the rest of his sentence in Scotland, and seven senior US senators, including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, sent a letter to Mr MacAskill expressing concern over his potential release.
Last night Mrs Clinton made clear her strong views on the matter. “I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime,” she said. “We are still enouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not.”
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, broke his silence yesterday on al-Megrahi’s possible release saying he believed that Mr MacAskill would “make the right decision for the right reasons”. He added: “There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice.”
Megrahi's defence team revealed that he made the decision to drop the case because he believed it would speed up the decision to allow him to return to Libya.
The Herald understands that Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, will allow Megrahi to return to Tripoli later this week on compassionate grounds. Ramadan begins on Friday and there is concern that he would not survive the strict fasting regime involved while in prison.
Seven senior US Senators yesterday wrote to the Justice Secretary to oppose such a move. They include leading Democrats John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
However, a Libyan judge, who was in court yesterday as an "observer" to the hearing, said he should be allowed to return home to his family.
Honorary Justice Hamdi Fannoush said outside the courtroom that dropping the case was "not in the interests of justice".
Mr Fannoush said: "People want to know what happened but this closes the door on that opportunity.
"Megrahi wanted to clear his name in court but after trying every possible way of getting home to see his family, he felt forced to make this sacrifice.
"In Libya everyone is talking about this. They believe he is innocent and cannot understand why he is still not home when he is so ill. Judicially nothing more can be done now other than a public inquiry." (...)
Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge who was sitting with Lord Eassie and Lady Paton, said it was "of the utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini makes an early decision on whether she intends to insist upon the appeal.
The judge said the court urged her to reach a decision on that matter without undue delay. If she has not dropped the appeal against the length of sentence there will be another procedural hearing in three weeks. Ronnie Clancy, QC for the Crown, said she had to consider the public interest.
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the bombing, said the outcome was "more or less what we expected". He went on: "It's a sad day really. It's the worst possible decision for the families because we lose the opportunity to hear evidence that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought was worth putting forward."
Mr Mosey said none of the big questions about Lockerbie had been answered.
"We are back where we started 21 years ago, asking for a wide-reaching independent inquiry into all aspects of this disaster," he said. (...)
Christine Grahame, a backbench SNP MSP who has visited Megrahi in prison, said outside court it was "extraordinary" that the Crown had not dropped its own appeal against Megrahi's sentence.
"The Crown was not prepared today to say whether they would drop their appeal." she said. "We had the extraordinary thing of the Crown saying they'd not seen the medical evidence."
She went on: "They have known this was coming before the court and I hope that within the next 24 hours they lodge something dropping their appeal."
Excerpts from David Maddox's report in The Scotsman:
Alex Salmond has given the strongest indication yet that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison, by insisting the decision would not be swayed by a show of strength from the United States.
Speaking after the receipt of a letter from several high-profile US senators, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, the First Minister said: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."
In the letter, received on the day Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi formally dropped his appeal, the senators urged justice secretary Kenny MacAskill not to allow the bomber to return to Libya. It followed similar moves from US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former presidential candidate John McCain. Last night in Washington, Mrs Clinton issued a strongly-worded plea to keep al-Megrahi in prison. "I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime," she said. "We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not." (...)
Megrahi could be returned to Libya on compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer agreement.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision had been made and issued a strong vote of confidence in the justice secretary, who has been under fire over the past week for his handling of the issue, following leaks suggesting Megrahi is to be released.
Mr Salmond said: "I can also say that a final decision has not been taken by the justice secretary – he only received his final advice at the weekend. I'm absolutely confident if there is one person in Scotland I would absolutely trust to make the right decision for the right reasons, it's Kenny MacAskill."
He also tried to quash suggestions that the dropping of Megrahi's appeal had anything to do with a meeting between the convicted bomber and Mr MacAskill.
"What I can say is, the Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal," he said.
The First Minister's intervention has been widely perceived as an effort to regain some control over an issue on which his administration has been accused of losing its grip.
A leading article in The Guardian headed "Lockerbie case: the fix and the facts":
After a short hearing in Edinburgh yesterday, Scottish judges accepted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's application to drop his appeal against his conviction and life sentence for the Lockerbie bombing. As Lord Hamilton implied in his judgment, the court had little choice once Megrahi had decided to withdraw. The upshot is that, through no fault of their own, the judges gave the impression that justice had been relegated to a walk-on role in a well-orchestrated international political fix. Whatever the intentions of those involved or the requirements of compassion towards a dying man, that outcome leaves the Lockerbie families looking like the neglected victims of a stitch-up and the rule of law looking like an afterthought.
Even now, with the way clearing for Megrahi's early release, the decision that faces Scotland's justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is not straightforward. He has the authority to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds because of his cancer. Or he has the option of allowing him to be returned to serve out his time in a Libyan jail under the terms of an agreement between the UK and Libyan governments. There are other options too. But the underlying problem about the Lockerbie case is the same as always – the mismatch between the immensity of a crime that resulted in 270 deaths and the imperfections of the search for the truth about what happened. Exactly where Megrahi fits into the elusive story is not absolutely clear. Until yesterday, his lawyers had worked tirelessly to argue that he played no real role. All along, there have been parallel legal and political universes. As the saga has unwound, the facts have become less watertight and a fear has grown both of an injustice against Megrahi and, at least as importantly, the possibility that the outrage against Pan Am flight 103 might have been state-sponsored in a way that remains concealed from the courts.
In such circumstances, any release of Megrahi by a politician rather than by a court inevitably causes misgivings Рand worse Рwhatever the motivation and however scrupulous the process. As a rule, ministers should not be asked to do the work of judges. They inevitably concern themselves with issues like raison d'̩tat, party advantage, self-promotion and press reaction as much as dispensing justice or maintaining the rule of law. Mr MacAskill should certainly have kept quiet about his intentions until he had decided what to do. Instead he allowed the different interest groups to bid for his vote. The Lockerbie case has always involved political judgments as well as legal ones. Releasing Megrahi may indeed be compassionate and the least worst option in the current circumstances. But it is a bad outcome to a bad case nonetheless. Justice has not been done.
Excerpts from Charlene Sweeney's report in The Times:
The High Court in Edinburgh helped to clear the way for the Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya yesterday when it granted his application to abandon his appeal against conviction.
The White House responded by declaring that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi should remain in Scotland to serve out his life sentence. Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s spokesman, said: “It’s the policy of this Administration . . . that this individual should serve out his term where he’s serving it right now.”
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, called the Justice Secretary last week to insist that the Libyan serve the rest of his sentence in Scotland, and seven senior US senators, including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, sent a letter to Mr MacAskill expressing concern over his potential release.
Last night Mrs Clinton made clear her strong views on the matter. “I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime,” she said. “We are still enouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and we hope that they will not.”
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, broke his silence yesterday on al-Megrahi’s possible release saying he believed that Mr MacAskill would “make the right decision for the right reasons”. He added: “There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice.”
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Gaddafi Critical US Objection to al-Megrahi's Release
High-level Libyan sources have disclosed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Libyan Leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, who recently met a US congressional delegation in Tripoli, sharply criticized the US objection to the release for health reasons of Libyan citizen Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who was convicted in the Lockerbie case.
Al- Gaddafi considered what he called the hard-line US stand as one which does not contribute to building strong relations of friendship between Tripoli and Washington. The sources said al-Gaddafi urged the United States to bypass al-Megrahi's case as quickly as possible due to his health conditions so that he can spend his remaining days with his family and relatives due to the deterioration of his medical condition caused by cancer.
But on the other hand, a high-level Libyan official expected al-Megrahi's return to his country within days after his release from his current jail in Scotland because of the deterioration in his health. (...)
On its part, a source in al-Megrahi's family, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the family was waiting for his return as soon as possible and praised the role of al- Gaddafi Development Foundation, which is led by the Libyan leader's second son Saif-al-Islam, in returning al-Megrahi to his homeland and family. It added: "We thank Engineer Saif-al-Islam al- Gaddafi for all his positive efforts in this and also thank the foundation he leads for its constant care for him and his family through his years in jail."
[From a report from Cairo on the website of Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the leading Arabic language daily newspapers.]
Al- Gaddafi considered what he called the hard-line US stand as one which does not contribute to building strong relations of friendship between Tripoli and Washington. The sources said al-Gaddafi urged the United States to bypass al-Megrahi's case as quickly as possible due to his health conditions so that he can spend his remaining days with his family and relatives due to the deterioration of his medical condition caused by cancer.
But on the other hand, a high-level Libyan official expected al-Megrahi's return to his country within days after his release from his current jail in Scotland because of the deterioration in his health. (...)
On its part, a source in al-Megrahi's family, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the family was waiting for his return as soon as possible and praised the role of al- Gaddafi Development Foundation, which is led by the Libyan leader's second son Saif-al-Islam, in returning al-Megrahi to his homeland and family. It added: "We thank Engineer Saif-al-Islam al- Gaddafi for all his positive efforts in this and also thank the foundation he leads for its constant care for him and his family through his years in jail."
[From a report from Cairo on the website of Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the leading Arabic language daily newspapers.]
Lockerbie: Crown appeal against sentence
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.]
"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.]
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.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)