The Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, may or may not have made the best decision possible, but the style in which he announced it suggested a desire, unfitting under the circumstances, to make the most of Scotland's moment in the international spotlight, and show the country to be capable of shaping, in this legal area at least, a halfway independent foreign policy. (...)
The British government, meanwhile, clearly wanted an outcome that would be satisfactory to Libya but has nevertheless felt able to criticise the Scots, thus hoping to appease both British and American public opinion. David Miliband's very precise emphasis on the constitutional proprieties has been in complete contrast to his vagueness when asked what he thinks should have been done.
The Obama administration has been no better. The United States has no desire to alienate an energy-rich nation hesitating between bestowing its favours on Russia, on the one hand, and various western countries, including America, on the other. But since it is Scotland that has had to take the decision, it has been safe enough for the American government to oppose it in principle.
Unhappily, what unites all these governments is a disinclination to pursue the truth – or to reveal it, if they know it – about the bombing of Pan Am 103. Distinguished lawyers have cast such doubts on the reliability of the evidence at his original trial that we cannot now say whether or not Megrahi was guilty of placing the bomb. Whether he was the instrument or not, we do not know who ordered the action, or facilitated it. And we do not therefore know which government, or governments, were ultimately responsible. We do not know, it can be argued, because we do not wish to know. Tracking the crime to the doors of the regimes in Syria, Iran or Libya, all possible culprits, some would say, would have repercussions threatening so many interests, in so many countries, that it is not worth doing.
It cannot be denied that those interests are important. They go well beyond securing commercial advantage for Britain, or overcoming bureaucratic obstacles faced by BP in Libya. Western efforts to end long-standing feuds with certain Middle Eastern states, undermined by many of the Bush administration's decisions but now placed on a better footing by President Obama, might well be endangered.
What remains of Obama's policy of engagement with Iran after Ahmadinejad's disputed victory in the presidential elections would be even more problematic. The slow rapprochement with Syria after the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri in Lebanon might be disrupted. Nor are considerations of this kind new in the Lockerbie affair. The switch in the focus of the investigations in the early years after the bombing from Syria to Libya was seen by many as more related to America's need to enlist Syria in the first Gulf war than to any new evidence.
...[I]t would have been foolish not to respond to Gaddafi's efforts to rehabilitate himself. That response brought benefits, some commercial, certainly, but others were more important, from the renunciation of nuclear arms to the release of imprisoned Bulgarian medics. The Libyan handover of Megrahi and another accused was part of this long process of rehabilitation. Most of these deals involved closing at least one eye to considerations of justice and truth. In that sense, this latest chapter is no different from what has gone before.
[The above are excerpts from a leading article in today's edition of The Guardian.]
Saturday, 22 August 2009
Robert Fisk: For the truth, look to Tehran and Damascus – not Tripoli
Forget all the nonsense spouted by our beloved Foreign Secretary. He's all too happy to express his outrage. The welcome given to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi in Tripoli was a perfect deviation from what the British Government is trying to avoid. It's called the truth, not that Mr Miliband would know much about it.
It was Megrahi's decision – not that of his lawyers – to abandon the appeal that might have told us the truth about Lockerbie. The British would far rather he return to the land of the man who wrote The Green Book on the future of the world (the author, a certain Col Muammar Gaddafi, also wrote Escape to Hell and Other Stories) than withstand the typhoon of information that an appeal would have revealed.
Brown and Gaddafi. Maybe they should set up as a legal company once their time is up. Brown and Gaddafi, Solicitors and Commissioners for Oaths. Not that the oaths would be truthful.
Megrahi's lawyers had delved deeply into his case – which rested on the word of a Maltese tailor who had already seen a picture of Megrahi (unrevealed to us at the time) so he could identify him in court – and uncovered some remarkable evidence from the German police.
Given the viciousness of their Third Reich predecessors, I've never had a lot of time for German cops, but on this occasion they went a long way towards establishing that a Lebanese who had been killed in the Lockerbie bombing was steered to Frankfurt airport by known Lebanese militants and the bag that contained the bomb was actually put on to the baggage carousel for checking in by this passenger's Lebanese handler, who had taken him to the airport, and had looked after him in Germany before the flight.
I have read all the interviews which the German police conducted with their suspects. They are devastating. There clearly was a Lebanese connection. And there probably was a Palestinian connection. How can I forget a press conference in Beirut held by the head of the pro-Syrian "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine" (they were known, then, as the "Lockerbie boys") in which their leader, Ahmed Jibril, suddenly blurted out: "I'm not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. They are trying to get me with a kangaroo court."
Yet there was no court at the time. Only journalists – with MI6 and the CIA contacts – had pointed the finger at Jibril's rogues. It was Iran's revenge, they said, for the shooting down of a perfectly innocent Iranian passenger jet by the captain of the American warship Vincennes a few months earlier. I still happen to believe this is close to the truth.
But the moment Syria sent its tanks to defend Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, all the MI6 truth-telling turned into a claptrap of nonsense about Col Gaddafi. (...)
Of course, we must now forget the repulsive 2004 meeting that Blair arranged with Gaddafi after the latter had supposedly abandoned plans for nuclear weapons (not that his Tripoli engineers could repair a blocked lavatory in the Kebir Hotel), an act which the former foreign secretary Jack Straw called "statesmanlike". (...)
Thank God for Jack Straw. He cleaned up Gaddafi's face and left it to Miliband to froth on about his outrage at Megrahi's reception back in Tripoli.
Meanwhile the relatives of those who died at Lockerbie – and here I am thinking of a deeply sad but immensely eloquent letter that one of those relatives sent to me – will not know the truth.
I suspect that the truth (speak it not, Mr Miliband, for you do not wish to know) lies in Lebanon, in Damascus and in Tehran. Given your cosy new relationship with the last two cities, of course, there's not a whimper of a chance that you'll want to investigate this, Mr Foreign Secretary. And not much encouragement will "Mad Dog" Gaddafi give to such an undertaking, not after the gifts – oil deals, primarily, but let's not forget the new Marks & Spencer in Tripoli – which he has given us. (...)
Ironically, Megrahi flew home to Tripoli on an Airbus A300 aircraft, exactly the same series as the Iranian plane the Americans shot down in 1988 – and about which Gaddafi never said anything.
It was Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri (once Khomeini's chosen successor but now a recluse under semi-house arrest who stands up for President Ahmadinejad's political opponents) who said in Iran in 1988 that he was "sure that if the Imam [Khomeini] orders, all the revolutionary forces and resistance cells, both inside and outside the country, will unleash their wrath on US financial, economic and military interests".
Remember that, Mr Miliband? No, of course you don't. Not even a whimper of outrage.
[The above are excerpts from Robert Fisk's column in today's edition of The Independent.]
It was Megrahi's decision – not that of his lawyers – to abandon the appeal that might have told us the truth about Lockerbie. The British would far rather he return to the land of the man who wrote The Green Book on the future of the world (the author, a certain Col Muammar Gaddafi, also wrote Escape to Hell and Other Stories) than withstand the typhoon of information that an appeal would have revealed.
Brown and Gaddafi. Maybe they should set up as a legal company once their time is up. Brown and Gaddafi, Solicitors and Commissioners for Oaths. Not that the oaths would be truthful.
Megrahi's lawyers had delved deeply into his case – which rested on the word of a Maltese tailor who had already seen a picture of Megrahi (unrevealed to us at the time) so he could identify him in court – and uncovered some remarkable evidence from the German police.
Given the viciousness of their Third Reich predecessors, I've never had a lot of time for German cops, but on this occasion they went a long way towards establishing that a Lebanese who had been killed in the Lockerbie bombing was steered to Frankfurt airport by known Lebanese militants and the bag that contained the bomb was actually put on to the baggage carousel for checking in by this passenger's Lebanese handler, who had taken him to the airport, and had looked after him in Germany before the flight.
I have read all the interviews which the German police conducted with their suspects. They are devastating. There clearly was a Lebanese connection. And there probably was a Palestinian connection. How can I forget a press conference in Beirut held by the head of the pro-Syrian "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine" (they were known, then, as the "Lockerbie boys") in which their leader, Ahmed Jibril, suddenly blurted out: "I'm not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. They are trying to get me with a kangaroo court."
Yet there was no court at the time. Only journalists – with MI6 and the CIA contacts – had pointed the finger at Jibril's rogues. It was Iran's revenge, they said, for the shooting down of a perfectly innocent Iranian passenger jet by the captain of the American warship Vincennes a few months earlier. I still happen to believe this is close to the truth.
But the moment Syria sent its tanks to defend Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, all the MI6 truth-telling turned into a claptrap of nonsense about Col Gaddafi. (...)
Of course, we must now forget the repulsive 2004 meeting that Blair arranged with Gaddafi after the latter had supposedly abandoned plans for nuclear weapons (not that his Tripoli engineers could repair a blocked lavatory in the Kebir Hotel), an act which the former foreign secretary Jack Straw called "statesmanlike". (...)
Thank God for Jack Straw. He cleaned up Gaddafi's face and left it to Miliband to froth on about his outrage at Megrahi's reception back in Tripoli.
Meanwhile the relatives of those who died at Lockerbie – and here I am thinking of a deeply sad but immensely eloquent letter that one of those relatives sent to me – will not know the truth.
I suspect that the truth (speak it not, Mr Miliband, for you do not wish to know) lies in Lebanon, in Damascus and in Tehran. Given your cosy new relationship with the last two cities, of course, there's not a whimper of a chance that you'll want to investigate this, Mr Foreign Secretary. And not much encouragement will "Mad Dog" Gaddafi give to such an undertaking, not after the gifts – oil deals, primarily, but let's not forget the new Marks & Spencer in Tripoli – which he has given us. (...)
Ironically, Megrahi flew home to Tripoli on an Airbus A300 aircraft, exactly the same series as the Iranian plane the Americans shot down in 1988 – and about which Gaddafi never said anything.
It was Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri (once Khomeini's chosen successor but now a recluse under semi-house arrest who stands up for President Ahmadinejad's political opponents) who said in Iran in 1988 that he was "sure that if the Imam [Khomeini] orders, all the revolutionary forces and resistance cells, both inside and outside the country, will unleash their wrath on US financial, economic and military interests".
Remember that, Mr Miliband? No, of course you don't. Not even a whimper of outrage.
[The above are excerpts from Robert Fisk's column in today's edition of The Independent.]
Caught in the middle of a transatlantic storm
[What follows is the Saturday essay in The Herald by Ian Bell, in my opinion (and that of many others) Scotland's best and most distinguished columnist.]
Unless the doctors are very wrong, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has almost served his life sentence. That's relevant. As things stand, prostate cancer will claim him before November's end. If he has escaped justice, however you care to define it, his victory will be brief. If he is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing, as he still insists, three months spent facing death among his family will be scant consolation.
Cancer is an actor, if that's the word, in this sorry tale. It rendered any hope the truth would be uncovered during Megrahi's second appeal meaningless long before Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, began to ponder compassion. The original prosecution case, encompassing six aspects of the trial pointing to a possible miscarriage of justice (at least according to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission), was never liable to be tested. A lot flows from the fact.
Who wanted the truth, in any case? The question is not meant to be callous or perverse. Washington's preferred outcome, it seems, was for Megrahi to die, and die soon, in Greenock prison. London, with a new friend in Tripoli, wanted the convicted mass murderer out of the way. A prisoner transfer deal, hatched by Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi two years ago, was the first choice. Compassionate release will do instead. Those left bereaved in the United States are, meanwhile, unswerving, in the main, in their belief that the convicted killer of 270 people has no right to compassion. Yet many of their British counterparts, no less grief-stricken, are deeply sceptical. They continue to ask questions.
Disputed identification evidence, withheld documents, allegedly suppressed warnings, arguments over timers, the loading of the bomb and a supposedly coincidental break-in at Heathrow: these issues amount to a divide as wide as the Atlantic. For most of the Americans, the truth has been established. For most of the Britons, the truth has been placed beyond reach. Someone is wrong.
In the middle of all this stands the Scottish Government. First, it had to assert its rights over Blair's deal then watch while, this spring, Jack Straw rushed the transfer agreement through parliament to avoid damaging "relations" with Libya. More recently, Edinburgh has been subjected to a barrage - suspiciously belated - from the big guns in Washington. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barack Obama: the attempt to bully a minor administration with clear jurisdiction has been explicit.
Things have been busy on the home front, too. MacAskill could not allow Megrahi's request for transfer because, for some reason, the Crown failed to withdraw its appeal against the original sentence. Yet when, on Thursday, the Justice Secretary decided to release the prisoner on compassionate grounds, Labour politicians attacked him for it.
The ink was scarcely dry on the transfer legislation that was intended to achieve the same end, in other words, but London elected to echo Washington's displeasure. As a footnote, it emerged that Lord Mandelson had "bumped into" Gaddafi's son on a yacht in Corfu recently. As one does.
MacAskill consulted all relevant parties. Who else can say the same? London first claimed that Blair's deal would not involve Megrahi, the only Libyan in the Scottish penal system, then changed its mind while granting Edinburgh a veto, of sorts. Yet while the veto was allowed, and while preparations for the second appeal were in train, the transfer treaty was ratified. Libya's government duly made application.
All this, we were asked to believe, came as news to the Americans. Washington claimed to have an assurance that Megrahi would serve out his time in Scotland. London said that no such agreement existed. Compassionate release, available in theory to any prisoner, became Edinburgh's only realistic choice short of retaining the prisoner in an institution incapable of providing proper care.
Simple facts and devious motives collide. London could go some way to satisfying bereaved British relatives by ordering a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has no such power. The questions involved are substantial and serious, at least according to the criminal cases review commission, yet no inquiry is forthcoming.
Then again, such an inquiry would doubtless involve further arguments over classified documents. In that regard, as Megrahi's lawyers know only too well, the Westminster government has form. So is that to be it? The truth about the worst mass murder on British soil or some version, neither justified nor explained, of the national interest?
Official American displeasure at MacAskill's decision also has a context. Successive US administrations have seen not the slightest problem with the original verdict. Alternative explanations for the destruction of Pan Am 103, with Syria and Iran as candidates, have not been pursued. The UN observer at Megrahi's trial condemned the entire proceedings, yet the White House is aroused over one man's whereabouts in the last three months of his life?
Scotland's SNP government has just had a lesson in geopolitical realities. Playing things by the book is construed as naivety. Defiance in the name of democratic rights tends to be punished. Twenty-one years after the event, it is worth recalling the arguments that once raged even over the idea that a Scottish court should even have jurisdiction: in the matter of Lockerbie, Scotland has been a nuisance to any number of people. The idea that we are better than terrorists and should act accordingly has, it appears, caused the most offence.
Appearances don't count for much. Prostate cancer does not render Megrahi innocent, but nor would his continued imprisonment settle the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing prevents him from publishing the evidence and arguments that would have supported his appeal. Equally, there is nothing to prevent the British government scrutinising such a document in a public inquiry. What are the chances?
One man who is said to have travelled to Malta under a false passport on the day of the bombing: that's about the size of it. Nevertheless, the governments of two major powers have been disinclined to take matters further, to put minds at rest, or to settle doubts, reasonable or otherwise. And, yet, the atrocities of 9/11 aside, the worst act of terrorism the west has seen is at stake, with the devolved administration of a small country left to hold the ring. Implausible, but true.
In these parts, meanwhile, the usual editorialising suspects have been assuring us that the Scottish Government - predictable, eh? - was not up to this job. Holyrood will return on Monday for more of those self-inflicted wounds.
An "ill-advised" minister visited a dying man in prison in order to reach a judgment. In this dark wood, attention has been fixed on some very small trees while London manoeuvres and Washington moralises.
I can't prove anything in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. I can, though, adduce reasons for real concern, and enough of them to reach an opinion. The review commission took more than three painstaking years to come to a similar conclusion. The fact that the case was referred yet again to the Court of Appeal should, you might think, make anyone pause. Strangely - or not so strangely - the larger forces which dominate our world prefer not to notice. A small country with a new parliament should draw a lesson from that.
Unless the doctors are very wrong, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has almost served his life sentence. That's relevant. As things stand, prostate cancer will claim him before November's end. If he has escaped justice, however you care to define it, his victory will be brief. If he is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing, as he still insists, three months spent facing death among his family will be scant consolation.
Cancer is an actor, if that's the word, in this sorry tale. It rendered any hope the truth would be uncovered during Megrahi's second appeal meaningless long before Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, began to ponder compassion. The original prosecution case, encompassing six aspects of the trial pointing to a possible miscarriage of justice (at least according to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission), was never liable to be tested. A lot flows from the fact.
Who wanted the truth, in any case? The question is not meant to be callous or perverse. Washington's preferred outcome, it seems, was for Megrahi to die, and die soon, in Greenock prison. London, with a new friend in Tripoli, wanted the convicted mass murderer out of the way. A prisoner transfer deal, hatched by Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi two years ago, was the first choice. Compassionate release will do instead. Those left bereaved in the United States are, meanwhile, unswerving, in the main, in their belief that the convicted killer of 270 people has no right to compassion. Yet many of their British counterparts, no less grief-stricken, are deeply sceptical. They continue to ask questions.
Disputed identification evidence, withheld documents, allegedly suppressed warnings, arguments over timers, the loading of the bomb and a supposedly coincidental break-in at Heathrow: these issues amount to a divide as wide as the Atlantic. For most of the Americans, the truth has been established. For most of the Britons, the truth has been placed beyond reach. Someone is wrong.
In the middle of all this stands the Scottish Government. First, it had to assert its rights over Blair's deal then watch while, this spring, Jack Straw rushed the transfer agreement through parliament to avoid damaging "relations" with Libya. More recently, Edinburgh has been subjected to a barrage - suspiciously belated - from the big guns in Washington. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barack Obama: the attempt to bully a minor administration with clear jurisdiction has been explicit.
Things have been busy on the home front, too. MacAskill could not allow Megrahi's request for transfer because, for some reason, the Crown failed to withdraw its appeal against the original sentence. Yet when, on Thursday, the Justice Secretary decided to release the prisoner on compassionate grounds, Labour politicians attacked him for it.
The ink was scarcely dry on the transfer legislation that was intended to achieve the same end, in other words, but London elected to echo Washington's displeasure. As a footnote, it emerged that Lord Mandelson had "bumped into" Gaddafi's son on a yacht in Corfu recently. As one does.
MacAskill consulted all relevant parties. Who else can say the same? London first claimed that Blair's deal would not involve Megrahi, the only Libyan in the Scottish penal system, then changed its mind while granting Edinburgh a veto, of sorts. Yet while the veto was allowed, and while preparations for the second appeal were in train, the transfer treaty was ratified. Libya's government duly made application.
All this, we were asked to believe, came as news to the Americans. Washington claimed to have an assurance that Megrahi would serve out his time in Scotland. London said that no such agreement existed. Compassionate release, available in theory to any prisoner, became Edinburgh's only realistic choice short of retaining the prisoner in an institution incapable of providing proper care.
Simple facts and devious motives collide. London could go some way to satisfying bereaved British relatives by ordering a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has no such power. The questions involved are substantial and serious, at least according to the criminal cases review commission, yet no inquiry is forthcoming.
Then again, such an inquiry would doubtless involve further arguments over classified documents. In that regard, as Megrahi's lawyers know only too well, the Westminster government has form. So is that to be it? The truth about the worst mass murder on British soil or some version, neither justified nor explained, of the national interest?
Official American displeasure at MacAskill's decision also has a context. Successive US administrations have seen not the slightest problem with the original verdict. Alternative explanations for the destruction of Pan Am 103, with Syria and Iran as candidates, have not been pursued. The UN observer at Megrahi's trial condemned the entire proceedings, yet the White House is aroused over one man's whereabouts in the last three months of his life?
Scotland's SNP government has just had a lesson in geopolitical realities. Playing things by the book is construed as naivety. Defiance in the name of democratic rights tends to be punished. Twenty-one years after the event, it is worth recalling the arguments that once raged even over the idea that a Scottish court should even have jurisdiction: in the matter of Lockerbie, Scotland has been a nuisance to any number of people. The idea that we are better than terrorists and should act accordingly has, it appears, caused the most offence.
Appearances don't count for much. Prostate cancer does not render Megrahi innocent, but nor would his continued imprisonment settle the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing prevents him from publishing the evidence and arguments that would have supported his appeal. Equally, there is nothing to prevent the British government scrutinising such a document in a public inquiry. What are the chances?
One man who is said to have travelled to Malta under a false passport on the day of the bombing: that's about the size of it. Nevertheless, the governments of two major powers have been disinclined to take matters further, to put minds at rest, or to settle doubts, reasonable or otherwise. And, yet, the atrocities of 9/11 aside, the worst act of terrorism the west has seen is at stake, with the devolved administration of a small country left to hold the ring. Implausible, but true.
In these parts, meanwhile, the usual editorialising suspects have been assuring us that the Scottish Government - predictable, eh? - was not up to this job. Holyrood will return on Monday for more of those self-inflicted wounds.
An "ill-advised" minister visited a dying man in prison in order to reach a judgment. In this dark wood, attention has been fixed on some very small trees while London manoeuvres and Washington moralises.
I can't prove anything in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. I can, though, adduce reasons for real concern, and enough of them to reach an opinion. The review commission took more than three painstaking years to come to a similar conclusion. The fact that the case was referred yet again to the Court of Appeal should, you might think, make anyone pause. Strangely - or not so strangely - the larger forces which dominate our world prefer not to notice. A small country with a new parliament should draw a lesson from that.
Why no outcry?
[This is the headline over an article by columnist David Frum posted today on the website of National Post. The following are extracts.]
I smell a rat in the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.
Here's what US President Barack Obama had to say about the release. "We thought it was a mistake."
In a written statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disappointed."
Does that not seem like strangely mild language to use about the release of a man convicted in the worst international terrorist attack against US citizens before 9/11? (...)
So why such a mild response to the Scottish decision?
Two speculative possibilities.
POSSIBILITY 1: THE DEAL
Al-Megrahi and an associate were brought to trial in May 2000 as part of a complex deal with the Libyan government. The US and Britain agreed to drop sanctions against Libya, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of the murdered and to surrender two men identified as suspects by US and UK intelligence.
The suspects were tried by a panel of Scottish judges at a special court convened in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted, his associate acquitted.
From the moment al-Megrahi entered a Scottish prison in March 2002, a campaign to release him gathered force. Nelson Mandela, who had helped broker the US-UK-Libya deal, urged in June that al-Megrahi be transferred to a prison in an Islamic country. In 2007, the UK and Libya reached a new agreement on prisoner exchanges. British authorities denied that the agreement would apply to al-Megrahi, but in May 2009, the Libyan authorities applied for his transfer anyway. In July, al-Megrahi (now suffering from prostate cancer) applied for release on compassionate grounds. In August he was released.
Question: Did UK or US authorities reach any bargain or tacit bargain about al-Megrahi with the Libyans at any point along this timeline? During the bargaining in the 1990s? Upon his extradition in 1999? As part of the deal to end the Libyan nuclear program in 2003?
POSSIBILITY 2: THE WRONG MAN
For years, many well-informed people in the intelligence community have doubted al-Megrahi's guilt in the Lockerbie bombing. They have argued that the bombing was the work of a Syrian based Palestinian group, the PFLP-GC, working for the government of Iran.
Among those who support the Iran-did-it theory are: (i) former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon; (ii) Robert Baer, the CIA official who worked directly on the Lockerbie case; (iii) Hans Koechler, the UN Security Council observer at al-Megrahi's trial; (iv) Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who organized the trial proceedings; (v) Dr Jim Swire, the spokesman for the families of British Lockerbie victims who lost his own daughter aboard Pan Am Flight 103; and (vi) David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post.
The US and UK publicly identified Libya as the guilty party in 1990. Why might Britain and the US prefer to assert Libyan rather than Iranian and Syrian culpability at that time? Could it have been a thank you to Syria for joining the US-UK Gulf War coalition against Iraq? Or was it simply less embarrassing this way? Five months before Lockerbie, a US warship, the Vincennes, had mistakenly fired a missile at an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people. If Iran downed Pan Am 103, some might cite the Vincennes incident as justification or excuse.
Question: Could it be that Hillary Clinton has come to believe the "wrong man" thesis? Here's what she had to say in a televised interview with the BBC on the eve of al-Megrahi's release:
"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." That does not sound like ringing certainty about the man's guilt, does it?
Doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt might explain the limpness of the Obama/Clinton statements about his early release. But such doubts would not excuse that limpness. If al-Megrahi is the wrong man, then there has been a miscarriage of justice. In that situation, al-Megrahi would deserve much more than release and a few quietly murmured words of "disappointment": He would deserve pardon, apology and compensation.
I smell a rat in the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.
Here's what US President Barack Obama had to say about the release. "We thought it was a mistake."
In a written statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disappointed."
Does that not seem like strangely mild language to use about the release of a man convicted in the worst international terrorist attack against US citizens before 9/11? (...)
So why such a mild response to the Scottish decision?
Two speculative possibilities.
POSSIBILITY 1: THE DEAL
Al-Megrahi and an associate were brought to trial in May 2000 as part of a complex deal with the Libyan government. The US and Britain agreed to drop sanctions against Libya, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of the murdered and to surrender two men identified as suspects by US and UK intelligence.
The suspects were tried by a panel of Scottish judges at a special court convened in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted, his associate acquitted.
From the moment al-Megrahi entered a Scottish prison in March 2002, a campaign to release him gathered force. Nelson Mandela, who had helped broker the US-UK-Libya deal, urged in June that al-Megrahi be transferred to a prison in an Islamic country. In 2007, the UK and Libya reached a new agreement on prisoner exchanges. British authorities denied that the agreement would apply to al-Megrahi, but in May 2009, the Libyan authorities applied for his transfer anyway. In July, al-Megrahi (now suffering from prostate cancer) applied for release on compassionate grounds. In August he was released.
Question: Did UK or US authorities reach any bargain or tacit bargain about al-Megrahi with the Libyans at any point along this timeline? During the bargaining in the 1990s? Upon his extradition in 1999? As part of the deal to end the Libyan nuclear program in 2003?
POSSIBILITY 2: THE WRONG MAN
For years, many well-informed people in the intelligence community have doubted al-Megrahi's guilt in the Lockerbie bombing. They have argued that the bombing was the work of a Syrian based Palestinian group, the PFLP-GC, working for the government of Iran.
Among those who support the Iran-did-it theory are: (i) former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon; (ii) Robert Baer, the CIA official who worked directly on the Lockerbie case; (iii) Hans Koechler, the UN Security Council observer at al-Megrahi's trial; (iv) Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who organized the trial proceedings; (v) Dr Jim Swire, the spokesman for the families of British Lockerbie victims who lost his own daughter aboard Pan Am Flight 103; and (vi) David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post.
The US and UK publicly identified Libya as the guilty party in 1990. Why might Britain and the US prefer to assert Libyan rather than Iranian and Syrian culpability at that time? Could it have been a thank you to Syria for joining the US-UK Gulf War coalition against Iraq? Or was it simply less embarrassing this way? Five months before Lockerbie, a US warship, the Vincennes, had mistakenly fired a missile at an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people. If Iran downed Pan Am 103, some might cite the Vincennes incident as justification or excuse.
Question: Could it be that Hillary Clinton has come to believe the "wrong man" thesis? Here's what she had to say in a televised interview with the BBC on the eve of al-Megrahi's release:
"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." That does not sound like ringing certainty about the man's guilt, does it?
Doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt might explain the limpness of the Obama/Clinton statements about his early release. But such doubts would not excuse that limpness. If al-Megrahi is the wrong man, then there has been a miscarriage of justice. In that situation, al-Megrahi would deserve much more than release and a few quietly murmured words of "disappointment": He would deserve pardon, apology and compensation.
Megrahi's appeal materials will be made public
[Today's edition of The Times carries an exclusive interview with Abdelbaset Megrahi. Reporter Martin Fletcher went to Megrahi's home in Tripoli yesterday, sent in his card and was invited inside. The following are extracts from his report.]
Is he the evil perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in British history, or a sick old man, a loving father and grandfather, who has suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice? Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi put on a virtuoso performance when The Times came calling yesterday.
His house, in the Dimachk area of Tripoli, was not hard to find. Policemen stood guard outside. The road was lined with the BMWs of smartly dressed friends and relatives who had come to pay their respects. The high outer walls were festooned with fairy lights and with pictures of the Lockerbie bomber as he looked when he left Libya more than a decade ago. In the garden stood a marquee where he had evidently been welcomed home the previous night.
We sent in our business cards and waited, more in hope than expectation. But ten minutes later we were ushered into the spacious hall of the distinctly plush villa where chandeliers hung above a marble floor — a far cry from the Scottish prisons where al-Megrahi has spent the past eight years. His family bought the house a couple of years ago with help from the Libyan Government.
The man himself was waiting in a reception room at the top of a wide and curving staircase; the curtains were drawn against the fierce afternoon sun and tropical fish swam in illuminated tanks.
He looked weak and grey, far older than his 57 years and scarcely recognisable as the man I last saw at his trial in the Netherlands in 2001. He was supporting himself on a walking stick. Like everyone else he wore flowing Arab robes of spotless white — “not what I wore in prison”, he joked in a soft voice and fluent English. He was seeing us, he explained, “because you came to our house. It is our culture.”
We sat on sofas. No tea was offered because it is Ramadan. To be free, he said, was “something amazing. I’m very, very happy.” When the doctors had told him he had just a few months left to live “this was my hope and wish — to be back with my family before I pass away . . . I always believed I would come back if justice prevailed”. (...)
As al-Megrahi was flying home ... on Thursday, President Obama sought to add another condition. He said that al-Megrahi should live out his days under house arrest. Al-Megrahi laughed. “He knows I’m a very ill person. You know what kind of illness I have. The only place I have to go is the hospital for medical treatment. I’m not interested in going anywhere else. Don’t worry, Mr Obama — it’s just three months.”
He did not come across as bitter or angry but continued to insist on his innocence, as he has done from the day of his conviction. He abandoned his appeal, he said, not because he was guilty but to give himself the best possible chance of going home before he died. He had applied to be freed on compassionate grounds and also to be transferred to a Libyan prison under the terms of an agreement Britain and Libya signed in April. One of the conditions of the latter was that all legal proceedings had to be finished.
He denied reports that he had been pressured to drop the appeal by a Scottish or British government terrified that such a hearing would expose a grave miscarriage of justice, but he added: “If there is justice in the UK I would be acquitted or the verdict would be quashed because it was unsafe. There was a miscarriage of justice.”
Al-Megrahi promised that before he died he would present new evidence through his Scottish lawyers that would exonerate him. “My message to the British and Scottish communities is that I will put out the evidence and ask them to be the jury,” he said. He refused to elaborate. (...)
He said that he understood why many of the victims’ relatives were angry at his release. “They have hatred for me. It’s natural to behave like this,” he said, although he pointedly added that others had written to him in prison to say that they forgave him whether he was guilty or innocent. He appealed for the families’ understanding. “They believe I’m guilty which in reality I’m not. One day the truth won’t be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: ‘The truth never dies’.”
Is he the evil perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in British history, or a sick old man, a loving father and grandfather, who has suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice? Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi put on a virtuoso performance when The Times came calling yesterday.
His house, in the Dimachk area of Tripoli, was not hard to find. Policemen stood guard outside. The road was lined with the BMWs of smartly dressed friends and relatives who had come to pay their respects. The high outer walls were festooned with fairy lights and with pictures of the Lockerbie bomber as he looked when he left Libya more than a decade ago. In the garden stood a marquee where he had evidently been welcomed home the previous night.
We sent in our business cards and waited, more in hope than expectation. But ten minutes later we were ushered into the spacious hall of the distinctly plush villa where chandeliers hung above a marble floor — a far cry from the Scottish prisons where al-Megrahi has spent the past eight years. His family bought the house a couple of years ago with help from the Libyan Government.
The man himself was waiting in a reception room at the top of a wide and curving staircase; the curtains were drawn against the fierce afternoon sun and tropical fish swam in illuminated tanks.
He looked weak and grey, far older than his 57 years and scarcely recognisable as the man I last saw at his trial in the Netherlands in 2001. He was supporting himself on a walking stick. Like everyone else he wore flowing Arab robes of spotless white — “not what I wore in prison”, he joked in a soft voice and fluent English. He was seeing us, he explained, “because you came to our house. It is our culture.”
We sat on sofas. No tea was offered because it is Ramadan. To be free, he said, was “something amazing. I’m very, very happy.” When the doctors had told him he had just a few months left to live “this was my hope and wish — to be back with my family before I pass away . . . I always believed I would come back if justice prevailed”. (...)
As al-Megrahi was flying home ... on Thursday, President Obama sought to add another condition. He said that al-Megrahi should live out his days under house arrest. Al-Megrahi laughed. “He knows I’m a very ill person. You know what kind of illness I have. The only place I have to go is the hospital for medical treatment. I’m not interested in going anywhere else. Don’t worry, Mr Obama — it’s just three months.”
He did not come across as bitter or angry but continued to insist on his innocence, as he has done from the day of his conviction. He abandoned his appeal, he said, not because he was guilty but to give himself the best possible chance of going home before he died. He had applied to be freed on compassionate grounds and also to be transferred to a Libyan prison under the terms of an agreement Britain and Libya signed in April. One of the conditions of the latter was that all legal proceedings had to be finished.
He denied reports that he had been pressured to drop the appeal by a Scottish or British government terrified that such a hearing would expose a grave miscarriage of justice, but he added: “If there is justice in the UK I would be acquitted or the verdict would be quashed because it was unsafe. There was a miscarriage of justice.”
Al-Megrahi promised that before he died he would present new evidence through his Scottish lawyers that would exonerate him. “My message to the British and Scottish communities is that I will put out the evidence and ask them to be the jury,” he said. He refused to elaborate. (...)
He said that he understood why many of the victims’ relatives were angry at his release. “They have hatred for me. It’s natural to behave like this,” he said, although he pointedly added that others had written to him in prison to say that they forgave him whether he was guilty or innocent. He appealed for the families’ understanding. “They believe I’m guilty which in reality I’m not. One day the truth won’t be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: ‘The truth never dies’.”
Friday, 21 August 2009
Lockerbie, the Unanswered Questions
[This is the heading over a post on The New York Times news blog, The Lede. The author is Robert Mackey, the blog editor. The following are excerpts.]
Now that the Scottish government has released Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec 21, 1988, the appeal he had filed in a Scottish court will never be heard by a judge.
The firestorm of anger that greeted the decision to release Mr Megrahi, who is terminally ill, on compassionate grounds on Thursday is clearly based on the belief that he was responsible for the bombing, but doubts about his conviction, some of which formed the basis for the legal appeal he filed and then withdrew at the request of the Scottish government as a condition of his release, surfaced years ago. Despite what some readers of The Lede who posted comments yesterday seem to have assumed, those doubts existed outside the murky precincts of the Internet where wild conspiracy theories are spun out.
In a review of the case on Wednesday, the Scottish broadcaster STV reported that Mr Megrahi’s appeal was filed in 2007 after “a four-year review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCRC), who concluded that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred.”
On Wednesday, The Guardian published video of the Rev John Mosey, the father of one of the British victims of the bombing, who expressed his disappointment that halting Mr Megrahi’s appeal before it went to court meant that the public would never hear “this important evidence — the six separate grounds for appeal that the SCCRC felt were important enough to put forward, that could show that there’s been a miscarriage of justice.” Mr Mosey added, “We’d like to know what they are, where will they point?”
In an interview included in this video report from Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday, Mr Mosey called for a new public inquiry into the bombing and said of Mr Megrahi, “From the evidence I saw and heard in the court, and what I’ve read and seen, I doubt that he had any involvement in it at all.”
A Scottish reader of The Lede’s previous post on Mr Megrahi’s release drew our attention to this video, of a BBC interview with the father of another British victim of the bombing, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed. Speaking as Mr Megrahi was being driven from prison, Dr Swire also called for a public inquiry and praised the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill for his “brave” decision. He added: “I don’t believe for a moment that this man was involved, in the way that he was found to have been involved.”
Readers who want to know more about the case against Mr Megrahi, and the suggestions that he may have been wrongly convicted, can consult two documentaries: “Shadow Over Lockerbie,” made for American public radio by John Biewen and Ian Ferguson in 2000, and “Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie,” made for the BBC in 2008.
Now that the Scottish government has released Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec 21, 1988, the appeal he had filed in a Scottish court will never be heard by a judge.
The firestorm of anger that greeted the decision to release Mr Megrahi, who is terminally ill, on compassionate grounds on Thursday is clearly based on the belief that he was responsible for the bombing, but doubts about his conviction, some of which formed the basis for the legal appeal he filed and then withdrew at the request of the Scottish government as a condition of his release, surfaced years ago. Despite what some readers of The Lede who posted comments yesterday seem to have assumed, those doubts existed outside the murky precincts of the Internet where wild conspiracy theories are spun out.
In a review of the case on Wednesday, the Scottish broadcaster STV reported that Mr Megrahi’s appeal was filed in 2007 after “a four-year review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCRC), who concluded that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred.”
On Wednesday, The Guardian published video of the Rev John Mosey, the father of one of the British victims of the bombing, who expressed his disappointment that halting Mr Megrahi’s appeal before it went to court meant that the public would never hear “this important evidence — the six separate grounds for appeal that the SCCRC felt were important enough to put forward, that could show that there’s been a miscarriage of justice.” Mr Mosey added, “We’d like to know what they are, where will they point?”
In an interview included in this video report from Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday, Mr Mosey called for a new public inquiry into the bombing and said of Mr Megrahi, “From the evidence I saw and heard in the court, and what I’ve read and seen, I doubt that he had any involvement in it at all.”
A Scottish reader of The Lede’s previous post on Mr Megrahi’s release drew our attention to this video, of a BBC interview with the father of another British victim of the bombing, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed. Speaking as Mr Megrahi was being driven from prison, Dr Swire also called for a public inquiry and praised the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill for his “brave” decision. He added: “I don’t believe for a moment that this man was involved, in the way that he was found to have been involved.”
Readers who want to know more about the case against Mr Megrahi, and the suggestions that he may have been wrongly convicted, can consult two documentaries: “Shadow Over Lockerbie,” made for American public radio by John Biewen and Ian Ferguson in 2000, and “Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie,” made for the BBC in 2008.
Lord Advocate drops appeal against Megrahi sentence
Scotland's top prosecutor today dropped an appeal against the "lenient" jail term imposed on the Lockerbie bomber.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 57, was freed from prison yesterday on compassionate grounds.
He had been jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum 27 years – a term which the Crown was appealing against as "unduly lenient".
The formal decision to drop the appeal was taken after studying medical reports, said the Crown Office.
The decision to drop the appeal was taken by Scotland's top law officer, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini.
The Crown Office said: "The Lord Advocate has now had the opportunity to consider reports regarding Mr Megrahi's medical condition and prognosis.
"Mr Megrahi is now terminally ill."
The Lord Advocate had taken account of the fact that Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds and was no longer in Scotland.
"Had he remained in custody, he would have had no prospect of serving the current punishment part of his sentence, let alone any increased sentence that the Lord Advocate was seeking," said the Crown Office.
"That together with his release means that the outcome of any appeal could have no practical effect whatsoever for Mr Megrahi."
Megrahi successfully applied to judges on Tuesday to drop his second appeal against conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing in which 270 people died.
At that hearing, senior judge Lord Hamilton said it was of the "utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate made an early decision on whether she intended to insist on the appeal.
[The above is the text of a report posted this afternoon on The Scotsman's website.
Trust the Crown Office to reach a decision only after it could have not the slightest significance in the real world (and after not very heavily disguised criticism from the judges at the court hearing on 18 August at which Abdelbaset Megrahi was given leave to abandon his appeal). The conduct of the Crown Office throughout the whole Lockerbie case is one of the strongest arguments for an independent enquiry following Mr Megrahi's abandonment of his appeal; and it is a topic on which the Scottish Government, under the devolution settlement, certainly has the powers to render such an enquiry meaningful.]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 57, was freed from prison yesterday on compassionate grounds.
He had been jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum 27 years – a term which the Crown was appealing against as "unduly lenient".
The formal decision to drop the appeal was taken after studying medical reports, said the Crown Office.
The decision to drop the appeal was taken by Scotland's top law officer, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini.
The Crown Office said: "The Lord Advocate has now had the opportunity to consider reports regarding Mr Megrahi's medical condition and prognosis.
"Mr Megrahi is now terminally ill."
The Lord Advocate had taken account of the fact that Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds and was no longer in Scotland.
"Had he remained in custody, he would have had no prospect of serving the current punishment part of his sentence, let alone any increased sentence that the Lord Advocate was seeking," said the Crown Office.
"That together with his release means that the outcome of any appeal could have no practical effect whatsoever for Mr Megrahi."
Megrahi successfully applied to judges on Tuesday to drop his second appeal against conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing in which 270 people died.
At that hearing, senior judge Lord Hamilton said it was of the "utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate made an early decision on whether she intended to insist on the appeal.
[The above is the text of a report posted this afternoon on The Scotsman's website.
Trust the Crown Office to reach a decision only after it could have not the slightest significance in the real world (and after not very heavily disguised criticism from the judges at the court hearing on 18 August at which Abdelbaset Megrahi was given leave to abandon his appeal). The conduct of the Crown Office throughout the whole Lockerbie case is one of the strongest arguments for an independent enquiry following Mr Megrahi's abandonment of his appeal; and it is a topic on which the Scottish Government, under the devolution settlement, certainly has the powers to render such an enquiry meaningful.]
No fury over Lockerbie release from American media
[This is the headline over a report just posted on the website of The Times. It reads in part:]
News of yesterday’s premature release of Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset al-Megrahi was met by American newspapers with a collective shrug.
Given the tepid response to the Scottish Justice minister’s decision from American officials — including President Obama — however, the reaction in the media is hardly surprising.
In a radio interview yesterday afternoon, Mr Obama reacted to al-Megrahi’s release with restraint, calling the decision “a mistake” and "not appropriate.” He went further, but not by much, in calling for al-Megrahi to be kept under house arrest by the Libyan government.
Mr Obama’s cool reaction seemed to be echoed in the pages of America’s elite newspapers. In The New York Times, the Lockerbie story commanded a tiny box of exactly 27 words in the bottom left corner of the newspaper’s front page. The actual story was pushed to page four and barely featured on the paper’s website.
In the Washington Post, al-Megrahi’s release received even less attention. The story was relegated to page 16, far beyond the space usually reserved for stories deemed important.
Only the Los Angeles Times featured the story prominently with a large front page photo with caption of al-Megrahi arriving in Libya to cheering throngs of supporters.
News of yesterday’s premature release of Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset al-Megrahi was met by American newspapers with a collective shrug.
Given the tepid response to the Scottish Justice minister’s decision from American officials — including President Obama — however, the reaction in the media is hardly surprising.
In a radio interview yesterday afternoon, Mr Obama reacted to al-Megrahi’s release with restraint, calling the decision “a mistake” and "not appropriate.” He went further, but not by much, in calling for al-Megrahi to be kept under house arrest by the Libyan government.
Mr Obama’s cool reaction seemed to be echoed in the pages of America’s elite newspapers. In The New York Times, the Lockerbie story commanded a tiny box of exactly 27 words in the bottom left corner of the newspaper’s front page. The actual story was pushed to page four and barely featured on the paper’s website.
In the Washington Post, al-Megrahi’s release received even less attention. The story was relegated to page 16, far beyond the space usually reserved for stories deemed important.
Only the Los Angeles Times featured the story prominently with a large front page photo with caption of al-Megrahi arriving in Libya to cheering throngs of supporters.
Release of the Lockerbie prisoner: the case is not closed
Statement by Dr. Hans Koechler, International Observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands
Vienna, 21 August 2009
P/RE/21831c-is
Dr. Hans Koechler has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands. In two analytical reports, submitted to the United Nations in 2001 and 2002, about the trial and first appeal he had suspected a miscarriage of justice. Commenting on yesterday's release on compassionate grounds of the only person convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr. Koechler clarified certain important points in interviews for Austrian and international media.
Domestic and international legal aspects of the release
The decision by Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, was in conformity with Scots law and did not violate any international obligation of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding other declarations, release on the basis of the recently ratified prisoner transfer agreement between the Libyan Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom would have violated the terms of an agreement concluded in 1991 (!) between the United Kingdom and the United States according to which the full sentence of any person convicted by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands would be served in a Scottish prison. Dr. Koechler who had listened to the reading of Mr. MacAskill’s statement, said that he is at a loss to explain how the Scottish authorities can say that they had no specific information on this legal matter because the UK authorities did not provide it to them. If he would have checked relevant documents in the public domain, he could have found – in the official records of the House of Commons – the text of a statement made by the then Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the late Robin Cook, on 31 January 2001. Because of the importance of the issue in legal and political terms the respective part of the statement is reproduced below:
"I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that there will be no deal with the Libyan Government on the sentence of Mr. Al Megrahi. I do not believe that any Scottish court would wear such a deal, even if we remotely contemplated striking one. As part of the terms of the agreement in 1991, it was agreed that the full sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. At that stage, we rejected the proposal that the person responsible might be sent to a prison in a third country. The United Nations will have access to his prison, because we have nothing to hide or to fear about the standard of Scottish prisons. I suspect that they will be better than those of Libyan prisons."
This was the Foreign Secretary’s answer to the following question by the Hon. Francis Maude, MP:
"Will the Government undertake that Al Megrahi will neither be released early as part of some deal with Libya, nor permitted to serve part of his sentence in Libya?"
In view of this official statement, made by the British Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, it is crystal-clear that only release on compassionate grounds was in conformity with the United Kingdom’s international obligations - as Dr. Koechler had already stated on 5 August 2009 in an interview for the BBC London.
Dropping of the appeal by the convict
In an op-ed article for The Independent (London), Dr. Koechler has expressed serious doubts about the decision by Mr. Al Megrahi to withdraw his (second) appeal. His decision may have been made under duress and would thus be legally questionable, he said. According to Scots law, the termination of the ongoing appeal was not in any way required for compassionate release to be granted. The Scottish Justice Secretary will have to clarify vis-Ã -vis the Scottish, British and international public the exact circumstances under which the appeal was dropped. According to reports, Mr. Al Megrahi’s request was lodged through his defence team on 12 August 2009, in close proximity to the date of his release (20 August 2009) and just a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary. How are these coincidences to be explained?
It should have been obvious to the Scottish authorities that - in a case where an act international terrorism is suspected - it would be in the public interest of the country that has jurisdiction to continue with criminal proceedings and to exhaust all legal means to establish the truth about the incident. Why did the authorities satisfy themselves to deal with the question of criminal responsibility of two, later only one, suspect, and why did they accept the abrupt ending of the ongoing appeal of the only person convicted?
Omission by Scotland's Justice Secretary of any reference to the decision of Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Mr. MacAskill was right, in political as well as legal terms, in releasing Mr. Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds. However, in yesterday’s statement explaining his decision, he failed the test of statesmanship or judicial expertise. Upon concluding his statement he appeared more like a Prosecutor in a trial, suddenly assuming a vindictive tone and trying to convince the court of the guilt of the indicted, not like the Secretary of Justice who has to make a decision that is not related to the question of guilt or innocence (as is the case with “release on compassionate grounds” according to Scots law).
It is noteworthy that, in his statement, the Justice Secretary did not in any way take note of the fact that - in the years since the trial court's decision on 31 January 2001 - serious doubts have arisen about the guilty verdict and that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) – after four (!) years of painstaking investigations – had stated (in June 2007) that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and had, thus, referred the case back to the appeal court. He did – obviously deliberately – overlook the finding of the SCCRC according to which “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase [by Mr. Al Megrahi] of the items [clothes] from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988.” It does not need special intellectual skills to realize that the entire verdict collapses if there is no proof for the assertion that Mr. Al Megrahi was the person who bought clothes on that particular day in that particular shop in Malta.
In view of the appeal now having been aborted, the work of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission will have been in vain. The least that is to be expected from the Scottish judicial authorities is that they publish the full report of the Commission. Up to the present moment, not only the full report has not been released into the public domain, several grounds of appeal given by the Commission are being kept secret.
Public inquiry and possible role of the United Nations
As matters stand in Scotland, there may be no further criminal proceedings or investigations. However, establishing the truth about the midair explosion of an airliner and identifying the perpetrators is in the supreme public interest of any polity that is built on the rule of law. The legitimacy of any state is closely connected to a state’s willingness and ability to investigate and prosecute sine ira et studio each and every incident such as that which caused the death of 270 innocent people on the PanAm plane and in Lockerbie, Dr. Koechler said. In an exclusive interview with Al-Jazeera’s Felicity Barr the former UN-appointed observer reiterated his call for a public inquiry to be mandated by the British House of Commons. He further explained that, absent a decision by the House of Commons, the United Nations General Assembly may consider establishing an international commission of inquiry into the Lockerbie incident on the basis of Art. 22 of the UN Charter. Since the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, has decided on 12 September 2003 to remove the Lockerbie issue “from the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized,” the General Assembly would undoubtedly have authority to deal with the issue.
About alternative theories
In all conversations with media representatives and in an interview, moderated from London and broadcast live on Al-Jazeera TV shortly after Mr. Al-Megrahi’s release, Dr. Koechler has made clear that, as a United Nations-appointed observer as well as a scholar, he does not engage in any speculation about the perpetrators as long as no alternative theory about the incident can be built beyond a reasonable doubt. He added that, if the Scottish judges at Camp Zeist would have respected that criterion, they could not have reached the guilty verdict in the case of Mr. Al Megrahi.
[In an article headed "I saw the trial – and the verdict made no sense" in today's edition of The Independent Dr Koechler writes the following:]
I am always surprised when people refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out. It amazes me that the British and American governments act as if the investigation into the bombing is somehow complete.
But I welcome the release of Megrahi, because I firmly believe that he is innocent of the charges made against him. Believe me, if I thought he was guilty I would not be pleased to see him released from jail.
His decision to drop his appeal, however, is deeply suspicious – I believe Megrahi made that decision under duress. Under Scottish law he did not need to abandon his appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds. So why did he do it? It makes no sense that he would suddenly let it go.
In my time as the UN's observer at Megrahi's trial, I watched a case unfold that was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.
The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony. The weakness of that testimony would have been a key component of Megrahi's appeal.
We will probably never really know who caused the Lockerbie bombing. So much key information was withheld from the trial. A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. The British have yet satisfactorily to explain why.
I want to know when the bomb was placed on the plane and by whom. We have to look more closely into the "London theory" – that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.
It would be childish to be satisfied with the conviction of just one person for a crime that clearly involved a large number of people. I find it very difficult to understand why there seems to be so little pressure from the British and American public on their governments to investigate the bombing properly.
The UK regularly talks of the need to pursue all terrorist atrocities. Yet how can the Government assure the public they really believe that, when they have virtually abandoned their investigation into the worst terrorist attack in the country's history?
We have to know what happened and the only way is a full public inquiry, either mandated by the House of Commons or by an investigative commission voted for by the UN's General Assembly. Time is of the essence. This crime is already 21 years old. To find out the truth we must act now.
Vienna, 21 August 2009
P/RE/21831c-is
Dr. Hans Koechler has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands. In two analytical reports, submitted to the United Nations in 2001 and 2002, about the trial and first appeal he had suspected a miscarriage of justice. Commenting on yesterday's release on compassionate grounds of the only person convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr. Koechler clarified certain important points in interviews for Austrian and international media.
Domestic and international legal aspects of the release
The decision by Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, was in conformity with Scots law and did not violate any international obligation of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding other declarations, release on the basis of the recently ratified prisoner transfer agreement between the Libyan Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom would have violated the terms of an agreement concluded in 1991 (!) between the United Kingdom and the United States according to which the full sentence of any person convicted by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands would be served in a Scottish prison. Dr. Koechler who had listened to the reading of Mr. MacAskill’s statement, said that he is at a loss to explain how the Scottish authorities can say that they had no specific information on this legal matter because the UK authorities did not provide it to them. If he would have checked relevant documents in the public domain, he could have found – in the official records of the House of Commons – the text of a statement made by the then Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the late Robin Cook, on 31 January 2001. Because of the importance of the issue in legal and political terms the respective part of the statement is reproduced below:
"I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that there will be no deal with the Libyan Government on the sentence of Mr. Al Megrahi. I do not believe that any Scottish court would wear such a deal, even if we remotely contemplated striking one. As part of the terms of the agreement in 1991, it was agreed that the full sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. At that stage, we rejected the proposal that the person responsible might be sent to a prison in a third country. The United Nations will have access to his prison, because we have nothing to hide or to fear about the standard of Scottish prisons. I suspect that they will be better than those of Libyan prisons."
This was the Foreign Secretary’s answer to the following question by the Hon. Francis Maude, MP:
"Will the Government undertake that Al Megrahi will neither be released early as part of some deal with Libya, nor permitted to serve part of his sentence in Libya?"
In view of this official statement, made by the British Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, it is crystal-clear that only release on compassionate grounds was in conformity with the United Kingdom’s international obligations - as Dr. Koechler had already stated on 5 August 2009 in an interview for the BBC London.
Dropping of the appeal by the convict
In an op-ed article for The Independent (London), Dr. Koechler has expressed serious doubts about the decision by Mr. Al Megrahi to withdraw his (second) appeal. His decision may have been made under duress and would thus be legally questionable, he said. According to Scots law, the termination of the ongoing appeal was not in any way required for compassionate release to be granted. The Scottish Justice Secretary will have to clarify vis-Ã -vis the Scottish, British and international public the exact circumstances under which the appeal was dropped. According to reports, Mr. Al Megrahi’s request was lodged through his defence team on 12 August 2009, in close proximity to the date of his release (20 August 2009) and just a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary. How are these coincidences to be explained?
It should have been obvious to the Scottish authorities that - in a case where an act international terrorism is suspected - it would be in the public interest of the country that has jurisdiction to continue with criminal proceedings and to exhaust all legal means to establish the truth about the incident. Why did the authorities satisfy themselves to deal with the question of criminal responsibility of two, later only one, suspect, and why did they accept the abrupt ending of the ongoing appeal of the only person convicted?
Omission by Scotland's Justice Secretary of any reference to the decision of Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Mr. MacAskill was right, in political as well as legal terms, in releasing Mr. Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds. However, in yesterday’s statement explaining his decision, he failed the test of statesmanship or judicial expertise. Upon concluding his statement he appeared more like a Prosecutor in a trial, suddenly assuming a vindictive tone and trying to convince the court of the guilt of the indicted, not like the Secretary of Justice who has to make a decision that is not related to the question of guilt or innocence (as is the case with “release on compassionate grounds” according to Scots law).
It is noteworthy that, in his statement, the Justice Secretary did not in any way take note of the fact that - in the years since the trial court's decision on 31 January 2001 - serious doubts have arisen about the guilty verdict and that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) – after four (!) years of painstaking investigations – had stated (in June 2007) that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and had, thus, referred the case back to the appeal court. He did – obviously deliberately – overlook the finding of the SCCRC according to which “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase [by Mr. Al Megrahi] of the items [clothes] from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988.” It does not need special intellectual skills to realize that the entire verdict collapses if there is no proof for the assertion that Mr. Al Megrahi was the person who bought clothes on that particular day in that particular shop in Malta.
In view of the appeal now having been aborted, the work of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission will have been in vain. The least that is to be expected from the Scottish judicial authorities is that they publish the full report of the Commission. Up to the present moment, not only the full report has not been released into the public domain, several grounds of appeal given by the Commission are being kept secret.
Public inquiry and possible role of the United Nations
As matters stand in Scotland, there may be no further criminal proceedings or investigations. However, establishing the truth about the midair explosion of an airliner and identifying the perpetrators is in the supreme public interest of any polity that is built on the rule of law. The legitimacy of any state is closely connected to a state’s willingness and ability to investigate and prosecute sine ira et studio each and every incident such as that which caused the death of 270 innocent people on the PanAm plane and in Lockerbie, Dr. Koechler said. In an exclusive interview with Al-Jazeera’s Felicity Barr the former UN-appointed observer reiterated his call for a public inquiry to be mandated by the British House of Commons. He further explained that, absent a decision by the House of Commons, the United Nations General Assembly may consider establishing an international commission of inquiry into the Lockerbie incident on the basis of Art. 22 of the UN Charter. Since the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, has decided on 12 September 2003 to remove the Lockerbie issue “from the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized,” the General Assembly would undoubtedly have authority to deal with the issue.
About alternative theories
In all conversations with media representatives and in an interview, moderated from London and broadcast live on Al-Jazeera TV shortly after Mr. Al-Megrahi’s release, Dr. Koechler has made clear that, as a United Nations-appointed observer as well as a scholar, he does not engage in any speculation about the perpetrators as long as no alternative theory about the incident can be built beyond a reasonable doubt. He added that, if the Scottish judges at Camp Zeist would have respected that criterion, they could not have reached the guilty verdict in the case of Mr. Al Megrahi.
[In an article headed "I saw the trial – and the verdict made no sense" in today's edition of The Independent Dr Koechler writes the following:]
I am always surprised when people refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out. It amazes me that the British and American governments act as if the investigation into the bombing is somehow complete.
But I welcome the release of Megrahi, because I firmly believe that he is innocent of the charges made against him. Believe me, if I thought he was guilty I would not be pleased to see him released from jail.
His decision to drop his appeal, however, is deeply suspicious – I believe Megrahi made that decision under duress. Under Scottish law he did not need to abandon his appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds. So why did he do it? It makes no sense that he would suddenly let it go.
In my time as the UN's observer at Megrahi's trial, I watched a case unfold that was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.
The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony. The weakness of that testimony would have been a key component of Megrahi's appeal.
We will probably never really know who caused the Lockerbie bombing. So much key information was withheld from the trial. A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. The British have yet satisfactorily to explain why.
I want to know when the bomb was placed on the plane and by whom. We have to look more closely into the "London theory" – that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.
It would be childish to be satisfied with the conviction of just one person for a crime that clearly involved a large number of people. I find it very difficult to understand why there seems to be so little pressure from the British and American public on their governments to investigate the bombing properly.
The UK regularly talks of the need to pursue all terrorist atrocities. Yet how can the Government assure the public they really believe that, when they have virtually abandoned their investigation into the worst terrorist attack in the country's history?
We have to know what happened and the only way is a full public inquiry, either mandated by the House of Commons or by an investigative commission voted for by the UN's General Assembly. Time is of the essence. This crime is already 21 years old. To find out the truth we must act now.
This shameful miscarriage has gravely sullied the Scottish criminal justice system
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by me in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
PROFESSOR Robert Black, Professor [Emeritus] of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, was one of the architects of the trial at Camp Zeist.
Here he gives his views on the original investigation, Megrahi's trial, his appeal and the impact of the case on the Scottish justice system.
THE INVESTIGATION
Within a week of the tragedy the joint team of British and American investigators had formed the view that this had been no accident and that the cause of the destruction of the aircraft had been a bomb. There then followed the most extensive criminal investigation ever conducted in Scotland - or, it seems probable, anywhere else - into an act of terrorism.
It came as something of a surprise when on November 14, 1991, the prosecution authorities in Scotland and the US simultaneously announced that they had brought criminal charges against two named Libyan nationals who were alleged to be members, and to have been acting throughout as agents, of the Libyan intelligence service.
Until then all of the leaks were that the atrocity had been committed by Ahmed Jibril's Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
Until the trial actually started I had no idea what the evidence was going to be and had no idea what the outcome was going to be. My job was to try to ensure that the trial would take place. It was what I heard at the trial that then gave rise to grave concerns.
THE TRIAL AT CAMP ZEIST
The prosecution in their closing submissions conceded that the case against the accused was entirely circumstantial. That, of course, is no bar to a verdict of guilty.
But to many observers, including me, it seemed that the case presented by the prosecution was a very weak circumstantial one, and was further undermined by the additional prosecution concession that they had not been able to prove how the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 got into the interline baggage system and on to the aircraft.
Before the verdicts in the original trial were delivered, I expressed the view that for the judges to return verdicts of guilty they would require (i) to accept every incriminating inference that the Crown invited them to draw from evidence that was on the face of it neutral and capable of supporting quite innocent inferences, (ii) to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, positively identified Megrahi as the person who bought from his shop in Sliema the clothes and umbrella contained in the suitcase that held the bomb and (iii) to accept that the date of purchase of these items was proved to be December 7, 1988 (as distinct from November 23, 1988 when Megrahi was not present on Malta).
I went on rashly to express the opinion that, for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi, it is submitted that this is precisely what the trial judges did.
I am absolutely convinced that if the evidence had come out in front of a Scottish jury of 15 there is absolutely no way he would have been convicted.
The judges didn't appear to give themselves the instructions that they always give to a jury - the perfectly bog standard instructions that every jury in every Scottish criminal trial gets about how to approach the evidence.
THE APPEALS PROCESS
As far as the outcome of the first 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.
I had hoped that the appeal court in the second appeal would have addressed the fundamental issues of (i) whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the incriminating findings, (ii) whether any reasonable trial court could have made those findings (and could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi) on the evidence led at Camp Zeist and (iii) whether Megrahi's representation at the trial and the appeal was adequate.
This will not now happen, because Mr Megrahi sadly felt he had to abandon his second appeal, and I will continue to maintain that a shameful miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated and that the Scottish criminal justice system has been gravely sullied.
KENNY MacASKILL'S ROLE
I have a great deal of sympathy with him. I am sorry he had to take so long to reach the decision.
However, in some respects it is just as well he did. He actually rejected the prisoner transfer application. If Megrahi hadn't belatedly put in an application for compassionate release he would still be in prison today. Perhaps the delay did serve a useful purpose. As Kenny correctly said in making his decision, he has to assume that Megrahi was properly convicted.
IMPACT OF THE CASE
If the approach is that everybody simply says "he abandoned his appeal and has been released on compassionate grounds, everything is therefore for the best" then it is a very sad day for the Scottish criminal justice system because no lessons have been learned.
My God, lessons need to be learned out of Lockerbie.
We have relied too much on those professionals in the system knowing what is the right thing to do and doing it almost instinctively. I am afraid that is simply no longer good enough.
There is still a cloud handing over Megrahi's conviction. Until that cloud is removed then the criminal justice system cannot legitimately claim to be one of the best in the world.
PROFESSOR Robert Black, Professor [Emeritus] of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, was one of the architects of the trial at Camp Zeist.
Here he gives his views on the original investigation, Megrahi's trial, his appeal and the impact of the case on the Scottish justice system.
THE INVESTIGATION
Within a week of the tragedy the joint team of British and American investigators had formed the view that this had been no accident and that the cause of the destruction of the aircraft had been a bomb. There then followed the most extensive criminal investigation ever conducted in Scotland - or, it seems probable, anywhere else - into an act of terrorism.
It came as something of a surprise when on November 14, 1991, the prosecution authorities in Scotland and the US simultaneously announced that they had brought criminal charges against two named Libyan nationals who were alleged to be members, and to have been acting throughout as agents, of the Libyan intelligence service.
Until then all of the leaks were that the atrocity had been committed by Ahmed Jibril's Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
Until the trial actually started I had no idea what the evidence was going to be and had no idea what the outcome was going to be. My job was to try to ensure that the trial would take place. It was what I heard at the trial that then gave rise to grave concerns.
THE TRIAL AT CAMP ZEIST
The prosecution in their closing submissions conceded that the case against the accused was entirely circumstantial. That, of course, is no bar to a verdict of guilty.
But to many observers, including me, it seemed that the case presented by the prosecution was a very weak circumstantial one, and was further undermined by the additional prosecution concession that they had not been able to prove how the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 got into the interline baggage system and on to the aircraft.
Before the verdicts in the original trial were delivered, I expressed the view that for the judges to return verdicts of guilty they would require (i) to accept every incriminating inference that the Crown invited them to draw from evidence that was on the face of it neutral and capable of supporting quite innocent inferences, (ii) to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, positively identified Megrahi as the person who bought from his shop in Sliema the clothes and umbrella contained in the suitcase that held the bomb and (iii) to accept that the date of purchase of these items was proved to be December 7, 1988 (as distinct from November 23, 1988 when Megrahi was not present on Malta).
I went on rashly to express the opinion that, for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi, it is submitted that this is precisely what the trial judges did.
I am absolutely convinced that if the evidence had come out in front of a Scottish jury of 15 there is absolutely no way he would have been convicted.
The judges didn't appear to give themselves the instructions that they always give to a jury - the perfectly bog standard instructions that every jury in every Scottish criminal trial gets about how to approach the evidence.
THE APPEALS PROCESS
As far as the outcome of the first 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.
I had hoped that the appeal court in the second appeal would have addressed the fundamental issues of (i) whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the incriminating findings, (ii) whether any reasonable trial court could have made those findings (and could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi) on the evidence led at Camp Zeist and (iii) whether Megrahi's representation at the trial and the appeal was adequate.
This will not now happen, because Mr Megrahi sadly felt he had to abandon his second appeal, and I will continue to maintain that a shameful miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated and that the Scottish criminal justice system has been gravely sullied.
KENNY MacASKILL'S ROLE
I have a great deal of sympathy with him. I am sorry he had to take so long to reach the decision.
However, in some respects it is just as well he did. He actually rejected the prisoner transfer application. If Megrahi hadn't belatedly put in an application for compassionate release he would still be in prison today. Perhaps the delay did serve a useful purpose. As Kenny correctly said in making his decision, he has to assume that Megrahi was properly convicted.
IMPACT OF THE CASE
If the approach is that everybody simply says "he abandoned his appeal and has been released on compassionate grounds, everything is therefore for the best" then it is a very sad day for the Scottish criminal justice system because no lessons have been learned.
My God, lessons need to be learned out of Lockerbie.
We have relied too much on those professionals in the system knowing what is the right thing to do and doing it almost instinctively. I am afraid that is simply no longer good enough.
There is still a cloud handing over Megrahi's conviction. Until that cloud is removed then the criminal justice system cannot legitimately claim to be one of the best in the world.
Lockerbie bomber: decision to release Megrahi was controversial, but correct
[This is the headline over an article in the Daily Telegraph by the paper's columnist Alan Cochrane. This is a staunch Conservative-supporting newspaper and it is somewhat surprising, and particularly significant, that it should carry such an article. The following are extracts.]
Whether deliberate or not — and I suspect it might have been planned to some degree — there was more than a whiff of old time religion in Kenny MacAskill’s entirely expected announcement yesterday that the Lockerbie bomber was to be allowed to go home to Libya to die.
In style and substance the Scottish justice minister adopted the sonorous tones and ecclesiastical references more in keeping with the pulpit than the despatch box. As such it was a surprise from this politician, who has never before worn his belief in a supreme being on his sleeve.
Mind you, his family is from Lewis - the closest Scotland has to a Bible-belt - and perhaps he thought that saying that Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power" might ease the acute pain his decision will cause amongst many relatives of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie outrage.
It was this ‘sentence’ that Mr MacAskill used to justify his highly controversial decision, which sent shock waves and earned him serious criticism around the world, especially in the United States. The verdict from on high for Megrahi was one that no court, in any jurisdiction in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal final and irrevocable .."He is going to die." (...)
Scotland’s international reputation has been damaged by this affair which the SNP have allowed to drag on for far too long.
However, this observer believes that Kenny MacAskill made the correct decision for the correct reasons, appallingly difficult though it must have been.
It is true that those responsible for the Lockerbie outrage showed no compassion for their victims, none of whom were allowed to spend their last days with their families. And it is true that no fewer than eight Scottish judges - three at the original trial and five at the subsequent appeal - had believed that there was evidence enough to convict Megrahi.
But I think a compassionate release is in order in this case and if this man really does have only weeks to live - and that’s what the doctors told the minister - then he should be permitted to die at home. (...)
David Cameron, the Tory leader, describ[ed] the release as "nonsensical" and Bill Aitken, for the Scottish Tories. saying that it should have been possible to keep Megrahi somewhere in Scotland. The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders also deplored the release.
Strangest of all, however, and adding fuel to the many conspiracy theories that abound in this incredible case has been the dog that didn’t bark in the night. I refer, of course, to the British government.
It is of course proper of them to state, as they have, that the decision on either the transfer or the compassionate release of Megrahi was purely a matter for the Scottish authorities. But given that the Scottish minister saw or spoke to or received representations from victims’ families on both sides of the Atlantic, with both the Libyan and US governments and with Megrahi himself, is it not beyond comprehension that the British government offered no opinion on the issue?
Does Prime Minister Gordon Brown not have a view on whether this man should go home? Does David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary? They may say that if they said anything it might have been construed as putting pressure of the devolved administration in Edinburgh.
But saying nothing was as Mr MacAskill said, with massive understatement,"highly regrettable."
All in all, this sometimes brittle minister made a good fist of a decision that is probably the most difficult I’ve ever seen a politician ever have to make.
[Note by RB: As I am becoming tired of saying, it simply is not the case that eight Scottish judges believed there was sufficient evidence to convict Megrahi.
The five judges in Megrhi's first 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."]
Whether deliberate or not — and I suspect it might have been planned to some degree — there was more than a whiff of old time religion in Kenny MacAskill’s entirely expected announcement yesterday that the Lockerbie bomber was to be allowed to go home to Libya to die.
In style and substance the Scottish justice minister adopted the sonorous tones and ecclesiastical references more in keeping with the pulpit than the despatch box. As such it was a surprise from this politician, who has never before worn his belief in a supreme being on his sleeve.
Mind you, his family is from Lewis - the closest Scotland has to a Bible-belt - and perhaps he thought that saying that Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power" might ease the acute pain his decision will cause amongst many relatives of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie outrage.
It was this ‘sentence’ that Mr MacAskill used to justify his highly controversial decision, which sent shock waves and earned him serious criticism around the world, especially in the United States. The verdict from on high for Megrahi was one that no court, in any jurisdiction in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal final and irrevocable .."He is going to die." (...)
Scotland’s international reputation has been damaged by this affair which the SNP have allowed to drag on for far too long.
However, this observer believes that Kenny MacAskill made the correct decision for the correct reasons, appallingly difficult though it must have been.
It is true that those responsible for the Lockerbie outrage showed no compassion for their victims, none of whom were allowed to spend their last days with their families. And it is true that no fewer than eight Scottish judges - three at the original trial and five at the subsequent appeal - had believed that there was evidence enough to convict Megrahi.
But I think a compassionate release is in order in this case and if this man really does have only weeks to live - and that’s what the doctors told the minister - then he should be permitted to die at home. (...)
David Cameron, the Tory leader, describ[ed] the release as "nonsensical" and Bill Aitken, for the Scottish Tories. saying that it should have been possible to keep Megrahi somewhere in Scotland. The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders also deplored the release.
Strangest of all, however, and adding fuel to the many conspiracy theories that abound in this incredible case has been the dog that didn’t bark in the night. I refer, of course, to the British government.
It is of course proper of them to state, as they have, that the decision on either the transfer or the compassionate release of Megrahi was purely a matter for the Scottish authorities. But given that the Scottish minister saw or spoke to or received representations from victims’ families on both sides of the Atlantic, with both the Libyan and US governments and with Megrahi himself, is it not beyond comprehension that the British government offered no opinion on the issue?
Does Prime Minister Gordon Brown not have a view on whether this man should go home? Does David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary? They may say that if they said anything it might have been construed as putting pressure of the devolved administration in Edinburgh.
But saying nothing was as Mr MacAskill said, with massive understatement,"highly regrettable."
All in all, this sometimes brittle minister made a good fist of a decision that is probably the most difficult I’ve ever seen a politician ever have to make.
[Note by RB: As I am becoming tired of saying, it simply is not the case that eight Scottish judges believed there was sufficient evidence to convict Megrahi.
The five judges in Megrhi's first 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."]
‘Deal in the desert’ put Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on path to freedom
[This is the headline over a long article in The Times. It reads in part:]
Supported by a walking stick, and wearing clothes that hung off his clearly diminished frame, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi did not look like the biggest mass murderer in British history as he boarded the flight yesterday that would take him home.
The Libyan known to the world as the Lockerbie bomber returned to his native country a free man after being granted compassionate release by the Scottish government, a decision that some believe has its roots in a deal made between Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi more than two years ago.
The notorious “deal in the desert” was a significant step towards Libya’s rehabilitation among world leaders after it was held responsible for the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, and also helped to clear the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s vast untapped reserves of oil. The prisoner transfer arrangement that the leaders agreed was also the first indication that al-Megrahi could one day return home.
By the time the memorandum of understanding between the two countries was announced, Scotland’s first nationalist government had come into power and Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, was furious that he had not been consulted. The issue became the subject of the first serious cross-border row — in a letter to Mr Blair, the First Minister made it clear that he thought his behaviour “unacceptable”.
“This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law,” Mr Salmond said.
The storm subsided when Downing Street claimed that the agreement did not extend to al-Megrahi, but by the end of the year a deal that involved the Libyan was agreed, with Scottish ministers being given a veto over any future request.
At the time it seemed unlikely that a transfer deal would ever be pursued. In June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred al-Megrahi’s case back to court, highlighting six areas in his original trial that could have constituted a miscarriage of justice. A series of hearings, some of which were held behind closed doors, started at the High Court in Edinburgh (...)
In the following months rumours began to circulate that al-Megrahi’s health really was in terminal decline. Reports suggested that his cancer had spread to his bones, and supporters urged the courts to speed up his appeal against the conviction. In April the first block of hearings in his appeal began in Edinburgh.
As defence lawyers were preparing their submissions Westminster was laying the grounds for an alternative option, and on April 29 this year the controversial prisoner transfer treaty was ratified. A week later the Libyan Government created a diplomatic headache for Scottish ministers by formally applying for al-Megrahi’s repatriation.
Consideration of the request was the sole responsibility of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary and a lawyer by trade. As part of his deliberations he began to meet all “relevant parties”. Among those he spoke to were families of the British victims and relatives of the 11 Lockerbie residents who lost their lives when falling wreckage crashed on to the ground.
Not all of them held the same view, but many of the British relatives were in agreement: al-Megrahi, they said, should not be in jail. The families of American victims were also given a say. In an emotional video-conference call between Washington and Edinburgh relatives of the 189 American victims — including 35 young students from Syracuse University — delivered the directly opposite verdict, calling for the Libyan to remain behind bars. Extracts of their testimonies, released this week, reveal the strength of their feeling. (...)
Just as it seemed that Mr MacAskill was caught in a no-win situation, the stakes were raised even higher. On July 24 al-Megrahi lodged another application with the Scottish government, this time seeking to be freed on compassionate grounds.
Yesterday the text of this plea was made public for the first time. His letter states: “I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery. My continued incarceration in HMP Greenock is not conducive to my wellbeing as my life nears it end ... I have never publicly taken a stance which would seek to impugn your nation and its system of justice. I have behaved with respect to the due legal process which I am subject to. It is with the same respect that I make the application to you to enable me to return to my country and my family with what is left of my life, as a son, husband, father and grandfather.” (...)
The decison over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber is quasi-judicial in that the Scottish Justice Minister must act free from political considerations. The opposition parties in Scotland instinctively refrained from commenting on the issue for fear of appearing to undermine the judicial process.
The united front broke down, though, at the sight of the Justice Secretary’s car driving through the gates of HMP Greenock before he granted the mass murderer the kind of face-to-face meeting that any other killer would be denied.
Mr MacAskill said that he was duty bound to hold the meeting because under the prisoner transfer agreement al-Megrahi had the right to representation. The opposition argument was that representation from his defence team was sufficient under the terms of the agreement.
The charge levelled at Mr MacAskill that he struck a deal with al-Megrahi that day is likely to follow him despite fierce denials. The Scottish government says it was a coincidence that al-Megrahi went on to drop his appeal against conviction. Mr MacAskill faced further allegations of resorting to leaks in an unsubtle attempt to gauge reaction to the biggest decision taken by the nationalist government. (...)
Suspicions of a deal deepened when al-Megrahi’s defence team withdrew his appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh. The court was told that the Lockerbie bomber believed that the course of action would increase his chances of being sent home.
The Lord Advocate’s failure to withdraw the Crown’s outstanding appeal against al-Megrahi’s conviction rendered as inadmissable his application to be considered under the prisoner transfer agreement, with the legal process incomplete.
The only remaining option for the Scottish government was the one that it has long been suspected of favouring — release on compassionate grounds.
With medical reports making clear that the criteria for such a decision had been met, and a recommendation from the parole board in favour of release on his desk, Mr MacAskill was faced with making the lonely decision for which his post dictates he must take responsibility.
When Mr Salmond declared this week that “international power politics” would not play a part in the decision, the die was cast.
Mr MacAskill, who was little-known outside of Holyrood before the implications of the case became clear, had decided to ignore the will of the Obama Administration and instead adhere to what he believes to be a key Scottish virtue — compassion.
[Further coverage in The Times can be read here.]
Supported by a walking stick, and wearing clothes that hung off his clearly diminished frame, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi did not look like the biggest mass murderer in British history as he boarded the flight yesterday that would take him home.
The Libyan known to the world as the Lockerbie bomber returned to his native country a free man after being granted compassionate release by the Scottish government, a decision that some believe has its roots in a deal made between Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi more than two years ago.
The notorious “deal in the desert” was a significant step towards Libya’s rehabilitation among world leaders after it was held responsible for the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, and also helped to clear the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s vast untapped reserves of oil. The prisoner transfer arrangement that the leaders agreed was also the first indication that al-Megrahi could one day return home.
By the time the memorandum of understanding between the two countries was announced, Scotland’s first nationalist government had come into power and Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, was furious that he had not been consulted. The issue became the subject of the first serious cross-border row — in a letter to Mr Blair, the First Minister made it clear that he thought his behaviour “unacceptable”.
“This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law,” Mr Salmond said.
The storm subsided when Downing Street claimed that the agreement did not extend to al-Megrahi, but by the end of the year a deal that involved the Libyan was agreed, with Scottish ministers being given a veto over any future request.
At the time it seemed unlikely that a transfer deal would ever be pursued. In June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred al-Megrahi’s case back to court, highlighting six areas in his original trial that could have constituted a miscarriage of justice. A series of hearings, some of which were held behind closed doors, started at the High Court in Edinburgh (...)
In the following months rumours began to circulate that al-Megrahi’s health really was in terminal decline. Reports suggested that his cancer had spread to his bones, and supporters urged the courts to speed up his appeal against the conviction. In April the first block of hearings in his appeal began in Edinburgh.
As defence lawyers were preparing their submissions Westminster was laying the grounds for an alternative option, and on April 29 this year the controversial prisoner transfer treaty was ratified. A week later the Libyan Government created a diplomatic headache for Scottish ministers by formally applying for al-Megrahi’s repatriation.
Consideration of the request was the sole responsibility of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary and a lawyer by trade. As part of his deliberations he began to meet all “relevant parties”. Among those he spoke to were families of the British victims and relatives of the 11 Lockerbie residents who lost their lives when falling wreckage crashed on to the ground.
Not all of them held the same view, but many of the British relatives were in agreement: al-Megrahi, they said, should not be in jail. The families of American victims were also given a say. In an emotional video-conference call between Washington and Edinburgh relatives of the 189 American victims — including 35 young students from Syracuse University — delivered the directly opposite verdict, calling for the Libyan to remain behind bars. Extracts of their testimonies, released this week, reveal the strength of their feeling. (...)
Just as it seemed that Mr MacAskill was caught in a no-win situation, the stakes were raised even higher. On July 24 al-Megrahi lodged another application with the Scottish government, this time seeking to be freed on compassionate grounds.
Yesterday the text of this plea was made public for the first time. His letter states: “I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery. My continued incarceration in HMP Greenock is not conducive to my wellbeing as my life nears it end ... I have never publicly taken a stance which would seek to impugn your nation and its system of justice. I have behaved with respect to the due legal process which I am subject to. It is with the same respect that I make the application to you to enable me to return to my country and my family with what is left of my life, as a son, husband, father and grandfather.” (...)
The decison over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber is quasi-judicial in that the Scottish Justice Minister must act free from political considerations. The opposition parties in Scotland instinctively refrained from commenting on the issue for fear of appearing to undermine the judicial process.
The united front broke down, though, at the sight of the Justice Secretary’s car driving through the gates of HMP Greenock before he granted the mass murderer the kind of face-to-face meeting that any other killer would be denied.
Mr MacAskill said that he was duty bound to hold the meeting because under the prisoner transfer agreement al-Megrahi had the right to representation. The opposition argument was that representation from his defence team was sufficient under the terms of the agreement.
The charge levelled at Mr MacAskill that he struck a deal with al-Megrahi that day is likely to follow him despite fierce denials. The Scottish government says it was a coincidence that al-Megrahi went on to drop his appeal against conviction. Mr MacAskill faced further allegations of resorting to leaks in an unsubtle attempt to gauge reaction to the biggest decision taken by the nationalist government. (...)
Suspicions of a deal deepened when al-Megrahi’s defence team withdrew his appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh. The court was told that the Lockerbie bomber believed that the course of action would increase his chances of being sent home.
The Lord Advocate’s failure to withdraw the Crown’s outstanding appeal against al-Megrahi’s conviction rendered as inadmissable his application to be considered under the prisoner transfer agreement, with the legal process incomplete.
The only remaining option for the Scottish government was the one that it has long been suspected of favouring — release on compassionate grounds.
With medical reports making clear that the criteria for such a decision had been met, and a recommendation from the parole board in favour of release on his desk, Mr MacAskill was faced with making the lonely decision for which his post dictates he must take responsibility.
When Mr Salmond declared this week that “international power politics” would not play a part in the decision, the die was cast.
Mr MacAskill, who was little-known outside of Holyrood before the implications of the case became clear, had decided to ignore the will of the Obama Administration and instead adhere to what he believes to be a key Scottish virtue — compassion.
[Further coverage in The Times can be read here.]
Released: Megrahi returns home to die
[This is the headline over The Herald's main report by chief reporter Lucy Adams on yesterday's release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
The Libyan man convicted of Britain's worst terrorist act arrived home to a hero's welcome as an international political storm erupted around the decision to release him from a Scottish prison.
Thousands of compatriots - some waving Scottish flags - greeted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last night, hours after President Barack Obama, who called his release a "mistake", pleaded with Libya to avoid making his return a victory celebration.
Megrahi's freedom came after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced he was allowing the terminally-ill cancer patient to return home to die on compassionate grounds.
Frail and dressed in a white tracksuit and cap, 57-year-old Megrahi - who was sentenced to 27 years for the murders of 270 people in 2001 - walked unaided up the steps of a chartered Libyan jet at Glasgow airport, which left at 3.26pm for north Africa.
In a statement released as he made his journey to freedom, the former Libyan agent said: "This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya. It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death. And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do."
Making one of the biggest decisions by a Scottish minister since devolution, Mr MacAskill had earlier said the dying Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power".
"It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die," he told the world's media. (...)
Pictures from Tripoli showed hundreds of people cheering Megrahi as he left the plane. A crowd also gathered in the city's Green Square to apparently celebrate his release.
However, the Tripoli Post reported how people were shocked at his poor state of health.
The newspaper said: "Many are blaming the Scottish authorities for not taking care of Megrahi's health while in prison and speculate that he was left, on purpose, to die of his cancer."
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter died on the Pan Am jet that exploded above Lockerbie in 1988, condemned the celebrations. "I think a hero's welcome is entirely inappropriate in the circumstances," she said. (...)
Details of Megrahi's personal plea for compassion were disclosed yesterday. "I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery," he told Mr MacAskill in a letter from jail. His plea was disclosed as private medical notes were also made public for the first time.
Last night, Sir Richard Dalton, who was British ambassador to Libya between 1999 and 2002, called the decision of Mr MacAskill to release the terminally-ill Megrahi "difficult" but "right".
He said: "Appalling though the atrocity was that led to the deaths of 270 people, there are not good reasons why anybody convicted of that crime should be excepted from normal rules which apply for considering release on compassionate grounds."
Jim Swire, who lost his 23-year-old daughter, Flora, in the atrocity and has been vocal in his belief in Megrahi's innocence, praised the decision.
He told the BBC: "I don't believe for a moment that this man was involved in the way that he was found to have been involved."
[Further articles in the same newspaper on various aspects of Megrahi's release, its implications and reactions to it are to be found here and here and here and here. An editorial can be read here.
The Scotsman's coverage of Megrahi's release can be read here. An opinion piece by Tam Dalyell in the same newspaper can be read here and a leader entitled "History will record Megrahi's release as the right decision" here.]
The Libyan man convicted of Britain's worst terrorist act arrived home to a hero's welcome as an international political storm erupted around the decision to release him from a Scottish prison.
Thousands of compatriots - some waving Scottish flags - greeted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last night, hours after President Barack Obama, who called his release a "mistake", pleaded with Libya to avoid making his return a victory celebration.
Megrahi's freedom came after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced he was allowing the terminally-ill cancer patient to return home to die on compassionate grounds.
Frail and dressed in a white tracksuit and cap, 57-year-old Megrahi - who was sentenced to 27 years for the murders of 270 people in 2001 - walked unaided up the steps of a chartered Libyan jet at Glasgow airport, which left at 3.26pm for north Africa.
In a statement released as he made his journey to freedom, the former Libyan agent said: "This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya. It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death. And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do."
Making one of the biggest decisions by a Scottish minister since devolution, Mr MacAskill had earlier said the dying Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power".
"It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die," he told the world's media. (...)
Pictures from Tripoli showed hundreds of people cheering Megrahi as he left the plane. A crowd also gathered in the city's Green Square to apparently celebrate his release.
However, the Tripoli Post reported how people were shocked at his poor state of health.
The newspaper said: "Many are blaming the Scottish authorities for not taking care of Megrahi's health while in prison and speculate that he was left, on purpose, to die of his cancer."
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter died on the Pan Am jet that exploded above Lockerbie in 1988, condemned the celebrations. "I think a hero's welcome is entirely inappropriate in the circumstances," she said. (...)
Details of Megrahi's personal plea for compassion were disclosed yesterday. "I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery," he told Mr MacAskill in a letter from jail. His plea was disclosed as private medical notes were also made public for the first time.
Last night, Sir Richard Dalton, who was British ambassador to Libya between 1999 and 2002, called the decision of Mr MacAskill to release the terminally-ill Megrahi "difficult" but "right".
He said: "Appalling though the atrocity was that led to the deaths of 270 people, there are not good reasons why anybody convicted of that crime should be excepted from normal rules which apply for considering release on compassionate grounds."
Jim Swire, who lost his 23-year-old daughter, Flora, in the atrocity and has been vocal in his belief in Megrahi's innocence, praised the decision.
He told the BBC: "I don't believe for a moment that this man was involved in the way that he was found to have been involved."
[Further articles in the same newspaper on various aspects of Megrahi's release, its implications and reactions to it are to be found here and here and here and here. An editorial can be read here.
The Scotsman's coverage of Megrahi's release can be read here. An opinion piece by Tam Dalyell in the same newspaper can be read here and a leader entitled "History will record Megrahi's release as the right decision" here.]
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Holyrood recall over freed bomber
The Scottish Parliament is to be recalled on Monday to discuss the controversial decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has flown back to Libya after being released on compassionate grounds. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The justice secretary reached his decisions on the basis of due process, clear evidence, and recommendations from the parole board and prison governor.
"Mr MacAskill is entirely open and accountable to parliament, and now that he has made his statement will be pleased to answer any and all questions which MSPs have on this important matter."
Holyrood presiding officer Alex Fergusson announced the move to bring back MSPs from their summer break, days after turning down an earlier request from the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Fergusson said: "Following the announcement by the cabinet secretary for justice at 1pm today on the compassionate release of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, I can confirm I have taken the decision to recall parliament at the earliest practicable opportunity."
The parliament will reconvene at 1430 BST on Monday when Mr MacAskill is expected to make a statement on his decision to release Megrahi.
He will then face questions on his handling of the case - and his ultimate decision - from MSPs.
[The above are excerpts from a report on the BBC News website.]
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has flown back to Libya after being released on compassionate grounds. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The justice secretary reached his decisions on the basis of due process, clear evidence, and recommendations from the parole board and prison governor.
"Mr MacAskill is entirely open and accountable to parliament, and now that he has made his statement will be pleased to answer any and all questions which MSPs have on this important matter."
Holyrood presiding officer Alex Fergusson announced the move to bring back MSPs from their summer break, days after turning down an earlier request from the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Fergusson said: "Following the announcement by the cabinet secretary for justice at 1pm today on the compassionate release of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, I can confirm I have taken the decision to recall parliament at the earliest practicable opportunity."
The parliament will reconvene at 1430 BST on Monday when Mr MacAskill is expected to make a statement on his decision to release Megrahi.
He will then face questions on his handling of the case - and his ultimate decision - from MSPs.
[The above are excerpts from a report on the BBC News website.]
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's statement
Shortly after he was released from prison on compassionate grounds, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi issued a statement outlining his empathy for the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 was destroyed in 1988.
“To those victims’ relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered,” he said.
“To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.”
The statement was read on behalf of al-Megrahi, while he was on board a specially chartered flight back home to Tripoli.
“I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland,” the statement read.
Some of the families of the British victims have expressed their relief that al-Megrahi has been freed since they doubt the safety of his conviction.
“Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
“I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.”
[The above is taken from an article recently posted on the website of The Times.
Here is the full text of Mr Megrahi's statement, taken from the BBC News website:]
I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland.
I would like to first of all take the opportunity to extend my gratitude to the many people of Scotland, and elsewhere, who have sent me their good wishes.
I bear no ill will to the people of Scotland; indeed, it is one of my regrets that I have been unable to experience any meaningful aspect of Scottish life, or to see your country.
To the staff in HM Prison Greenock, and before that at HM Prison Barlinnie, I wish to express thanks for the kindness that they were able to show me.
For those who assisted in my medical and nursing care; who tried to make my time here as comfortable as possible, I am of course grateful.
My legal team has worked tirelessly on my behalf; I wish to thank Advocates Margaret Scott QC, Jamie Gilchrist QC, Shelagh McCall and Martin Richardson together with the team at Taylor & Kelly, for all of their gallant efforts in my bid to clear my name.
I know they share, in no small measure, my disappointment about the abandonment of my appeal.
Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.
To those victims' relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered.
To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.
And, lastly, I must turn to my conviction and imprisonment.
To be incarcerated in a far off land, completely alien to my way of life and culture has been not only been a shock but also a most profound dislocation for me personally and for my whole family.
I have had many burdens to overcome during my incarceration.
I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair.
In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description.
I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable.
To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.
As a result of my surrender, and that judgment of the Court, I had to spend over 10 years in prison.
I cannot find words in my language or yours that give proper expression to the desolation I have felt. This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya.
It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death.
And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do.
The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction.
I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.
The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome.
I say goodbye to Scotland and shall not return. My time here has been very unhappy and I do not leave a piece of myself. But to the country's people I offer my gratitude and best wishes.
“To those victims’ relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered,” he said.
“To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.”
The statement was read on behalf of al-Megrahi, while he was on board a specially chartered flight back home to Tripoli.
“I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland,” the statement read.
Some of the families of the British victims have expressed their relief that al-Megrahi has been freed since they doubt the safety of his conviction.
“Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
“I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.”
[The above is taken from an article recently posted on the website of The Times.
Here is the full text of Mr Megrahi's statement, taken from the BBC News website:]
I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland.
I would like to first of all take the opportunity to extend my gratitude to the many people of Scotland, and elsewhere, who have sent me their good wishes.
I bear no ill will to the people of Scotland; indeed, it is one of my regrets that I have been unable to experience any meaningful aspect of Scottish life, or to see your country.
To the staff in HM Prison Greenock, and before that at HM Prison Barlinnie, I wish to express thanks for the kindness that they were able to show me.
For those who assisted in my medical and nursing care; who tried to make my time here as comfortable as possible, I am of course grateful.
My legal team has worked tirelessly on my behalf; I wish to thank Advocates Margaret Scott QC, Jamie Gilchrist QC, Shelagh McCall and Martin Richardson together with the team at Taylor & Kelly, for all of their gallant efforts in my bid to clear my name.
I know they share, in no small measure, my disappointment about the abandonment of my appeal.
Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.
To those victims' relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered.
To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.
And, lastly, I must turn to my conviction and imprisonment.
To be incarcerated in a far off land, completely alien to my way of life and culture has been not only been a shock but also a most profound dislocation for me personally and for my whole family.
I have had many burdens to overcome during my incarceration.
I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair.
In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description.
I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable.
To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.
As a result of my surrender, and that judgment of the Court, I had to spend over 10 years in prison.
I cannot find words in my language or yours that give proper expression to the desolation I have felt. This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya.
It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death.
And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do.
The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction.
I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.
The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome.
I say goodbye to Scotland and shall not return. My time here has been very unhappy and I do not leave a piece of myself. But to the country's people I offer my gratitude and best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)