[I am grateful to Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm for drawing my attention to this letter sent to all 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament by solicitor Anthony Robson. The full text can be read here, on The Firm's website. The following are extracts.]
This email is being sent to every MSP simply to express my disquiet at the reaction amongst many of you to the decision to release Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
What troubles me most is the censure of Kenny MacAskill. I am not an SNP supporter, but the vitriol poured Mr MacAskill's way seems somewhat misdirected. The simple fact of the matter is that the focus seems to have been placed on the release itself, of a man which we hear referred to often as 'a man CONVICTED of a terrible crime', rather than a man who IS guilty. I'm well aware that a small number of you may know the real truth and are clearly therefore quite happy to lie to the general public.
But the questions being asked seem couched in nothing other than self- interest, appeasement of political alignment, and a strange feeling that you're trying to keep the Americans happy. What you're not asking (and this is directed towards Mr MacAskill as well who avoided the issue entirely) is this, "Was al-Megrahi actually guilty?" How many of you have read the report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? I would recommend you also acquaint yourself with writing on the matter by Dr Jim Swire (whose daughter died on the Pan Am flight).
I'm sure each and every one of you went into politics thinking you could help people and make a difference (at least, I certainly hope you did). When the Scottish parliament came into being we were promised a new sort of politics, but I hate to have to tell you, all too often Holyrood descends into mini-Westminster. The unthinking way in which many of you have responded to the release of Mr al-Megrahi; the willingness to condemn an act of compassion, something sadly lacking in our world today; the political interference in what is, after all, a legal situation (separation of the judiciary and legislature anyone?); the rote repetition of words coming from across the water and from the head of the FBI (now if ever there was someone who would know the actual truth).
Not one of you appears to have asked the question. (...) As Joe Public we have little chance to get the message across, or ask the questions in ways in which they might be answered, or cause the truth to leak out. YOU DO.
So stop being a simpering coward (for, I am afraid, this IS simple cowardice). Forget about the safety of your seat or the disapproval of your peers, and remember why you got involved in politics in the first place.
I implore you to search your conscience, and to apply some rational thought, read the information which is out there, and instead of indulging in childish playground name-calling breathe some fresh air into the Scottish political scene and be HONEST, to us and to yourselves. (...)
At present the hatred of many of the families MAY be directed at an innocent man (only a thorough, and open, investigation of the facts could show that either way), and I have no pride in being part of a system that effectively colludes to mask the reality from those who are still grieving. Whatever reason you have for either hiding the truth, or ignoring the holes in the case that stare up so clearly, that reason can never be as strong as the reason the relatives of those who died have for wanting, and deserving, the truth.
YOU are stopping that happening. Do something about it instead of grandstanding. Because at the moment you are complicit, and I for one could not look at myself in the mirror if I knew I was capable of raising merry hell about this in the way you can, but appear to be content not to.
STOP asking the wrong questions; STOP clouding the issue by diverting attention to Mr MacAskill; START acting like grown-up, intelligent, querying, adults.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Unlikely to be motion to condemn release of Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report on the heraldscotland website. It reads as follows:]
Opposition MSPs are unlikely to unite around any motion condemning the release on compassionate grounds of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, following a rebellion by Liberal Democrats who support the basic principle.
Labour have one high-profile dissident, former minister Malcolm Chisholm, but it is known that at least three LibDems have made clear that they back the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who has terminal cancer.
It is understood that Liberal Democrat group rules contain a proviso that any conscience or moral matters must be afforded a free vote. This means that to maintain group unity they will have to come up with an amendment critical only of the handling of last week’s decision, rather than the decision itself.
LibDem leader Tavish Scott was critical of Megrahi’s release in Monday’s emergency session at Holyrood, as were Labour leader Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie of the Tories. But three LibDem MSPs have broken cover to say they thought Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made the right decision.
That dissent is a headache for Mr Scott and Mr Gray, who will be hoping that the three main opposition parties can unite around the strongest possible amendment.
The first indication of internal opposition to Mr Scott’s stance came on Monday when John Farquhar Munro, MSP for Ross, Skye and Inverness West, told BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal: “I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made.”
Then Central Scotland MSP Hugh O’Donnell said: “I thought the release of Megrahi in the circumstances was the right decision.”
Former Presiding Officer and one-time party leader Lord Steel has also clashed with Tavish Scott on the issue.
But LibDem MSPs say they have had emails critical of their party’s stance and veteran LibDem Glasgow councillor, Dr Christopher Mason, in a letter to The Herald, said: “I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on licence was right.”
Opposition MSPs are unlikely to unite around any motion condemning the release on compassionate grounds of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, following a rebellion by Liberal Democrats who support the basic principle.
Labour have one high-profile dissident, former minister Malcolm Chisholm, but it is known that at least three LibDems have made clear that they back the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who has terminal cancer.
It is understood that Liberal Democrat group rules contain a proviso that any conscience or moral matters must be afforded a free vote. This means that to maintain group unity they will have to come up with an amendment critical only of the handling of last week’s decision, rather than the decision itself.
LibDem leader Tavish Scott was critical of Megrahi’s release in Monday’s emergency session at Holyrood, as were Labour leader Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie of the Tories. But three LibDem MSPs have broken cover to say they thought Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made the right decision.
That dissent is a headache for Mr Scott and Mr Gray, who will be hoping that the three main opposition parties can unite around the strongest possible amendment.
The first indication of internal opposition to Mr Scott’s stance came on Monday when John Farquhar Munro, MSP for Ross, Skye and Inverness West, told BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal: “I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made.”
Then Central Scotland MSP Hugh O’Donnell said: “I thought the release of Megrahi in the circumstances was the right decision.”
Former Presiding Officer and one-time party leader Lord Steel has also clashed with Tavish Scott on the issue.
But LibDem MSPs say they have had emails critical of their party’s stance and veteran LibDem Glasgow councillor, Dr Christopher Mason, in a letter to The Herald, said: “I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on licence was right.”
Why as LibDems we oppose our party’s stance on freed Libyan
[The following are two letters published in today's edition of The Herald.]
1.
I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on licence was right. I believe Mr MacAskill when he says he was not party to any political or commercial deal, and that he did not seek to persuade Megrahi to withdraw his second appeal. I think his visit to Greenock Prison was quixotic and probably unnecessary, but I do not see it as a crucial matter.
I am deeply concerned that neither the Scottish Government nor the three main opposition parties seems to mind what happens about the questions left unresolved by the abandonment of Megrahi's appeal. If the opposition leaders are truly interested in justice for the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie atrocity, they should pay more attention to the views of Dr Jim Swire, who plainly wishes to see answers to the questions raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
If the Conservatives want to ask the Prime Minister a really challenging question about this affair, they should ask him why the Foreign Secretary repeatedly acted to hinder the progress of Megrahi's second appeal, and why he was so anxious to keep out of the proceedings the papers he said were vital to the security interests of the UK and an unnamed foreign power.
When the Scottish Parliament debates this affair next Wednesday, I for one will be very disappointed if the main opposition parties do not address the matter of how the doubts raised by the SCCRC are to be resolved. It is clear that none of the governments involved wishes to see these questions addressed.
The SCCRC, in effect, said the Court of Appeal should consider whether the circumstantial evidence on which Megrahi was convicted was reliable. We do not know what the court would have ruled. If it had quashed the conviction, there would have had to be an investigation into how unreliable evidence had been brought into the original trial. Was it just an unfortunate accident? Or was it deliberately procured? These are appalling questions. It is leaving them unresolved that brings shame on Scotland.
Dr Christopher Mason, Liberal Democrat Glasgow City Councillor, City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow.
2.
As a Liberal Democrat party member, I may be breaking ranks, but I can only answer in the affirmative the core question about the political or quasi-judicial decision of Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi; that is, did Mr MacAskill take the right decision and for the right reason (compassion)?
The only criticisms I have of Mr MacAskill are the advance publicity given to his visit to Greenock Prison and his suggestion that Megrahi's cancer is a sentence "imposed by a higher power", a notion repugnant to me as a strict ethical monotheist and, therefore, as a liberal in all things. However, such are side issues in relation to the core question.
As for criticisms from the US, I would suggest that successive regimes there are in no position to challenge the Scottish justice system. The US federally and in 37 of its states continues to practise the barbarity of capital punishment. There is also a gun culture and a lack of even-handedness in the administration of justice. The US regimes have also condoned the use of torture in interrogating terrorist suspects, a procedure backed, in a recent opinion poll, by a significant percentage of US citizens, including a majority of Republican voters.
I would suggest that priority should now be given to answering the many unanswered questions about the mass murder at Lockerbie in 1988, given the view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in Megrahi's case. And I would support suggestions that decisions on prisoner release should be taken judicially rather than politically or quasi-judicially.
Dr Alexander S Waugh, Banchory, Kincardineshire.
[Letters from Americans, expressing diverse views on Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, can be read here.
The letters on the subject in The Scotsman (largely supportive of Kenny MacAskill's decision) can be read here.]
1.
I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on licence was right. I believe Mr MacAskill when he says he was not party to any political or commercial deal, and that he did not seek to persuade Megrahi to withdraw his second appeal. I think his visit to Greenock Prison was quixotic and probably unnecessary, but I do not see it as a crucial matter.
I am deeply concerned that neither the Scottish Government nor the three main opposition parties seems to mind what happens about the questions left unresolved by the abandonment of Megrahi's appeal. If the opposition leaders are truly interested in justice for the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie atrocity, they should pay more attention to the views of Dr Jim Swire, who plainly wishes to see answers to the questions raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
If the Conservatives want to ask the Prime Minister a really challenging question about this affair, they should ask him why the Foreign Secretary repeatedly acted to hinder the progress of Megrahi's second appeal, and why he was so anxious to keep out of the proceedings the papers he said were vital to the security interests of the UK and an unnamed foreign power.
When the Scottish Parliament debates this affair next Wednesday, I for one will be very disappointed if the main opposition parties do not address the matter of how the doubts raised by the SCCRC are to be resolved. It is clear that none of the governments involved wishes to see these questions addressed.
The SCCRC, in effect, said the Court of Appeal should consider whether the circumstantial evidence on which Megrahi was convicted was reliable. We do not know what the court would have ruled. If it had quashed the conviction, there would have had to be an investigation into how unreliable evidence had been brought into the original trial. Was it just an unfortunate accident? Or was it deliberately procured? These are appalling questions. It is leaving them unresolved that brings shame on Scotland.
Dr Christopher Mason, Liberal Democrat Glasgow City Councillor, City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow.
2.
As a Liberal Democrat party member, I may be breaking ranks, but I can only answer in the affirmative the core question about the political or quasi-judicial decision of Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi; that is, did Mr MacAskill take the right decision and for the right reason (compassion)?
The only criticisms I have of Mr MacAskill are the advance publicity given to his visit to Greenock Prison and his suggestion that Megrahi's cancer is a sentence "imposed by a higher power", a notion repugnant to me as a strict ethical monotheist and, therefore, as a liberal in all things. However, such are side issues in relation to the core question.
As for criticisms from the US, I would suggest that successive regimes there are in no position to challenge the Scottish justice system. The US federally and in 37 of its states continues to practise the barbarity of capital punishment. There is also a gun culture and a lack of even-handedness in the administration of justice. The US regimes have also condoned the use of torture in interrogating terrorist suspects, a procedure backed, in a recent opinion poll, by a significant percentage of US citizens, including a majority of Republican voters.
I would suggest that priority should now be given to answering the many unanswered questions about the mass murder at Lockerbie in 1988, given the view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in Megrahi's case. And I would support suggestions that decisions on prisoner release should be taken judicially rather than politically or quasi-judicially.
Dr Alexander S Waugh, Banchory, Kincardineshire.
[Letters from Americans, expressing diverse views on Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, can be read here.
The letters on the subject in The Scotsman (largely supportive of Kenny MacAskill's decision) can be read here.]
Stark double standard
[This is the heading over an article in Online Journal by specialist writer on Middle East affairs, Linda S Heard. It reads in part:]
The repatriation to Libya on compassionate grounds of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi has caused a firestorm in Britain and the US.
President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party David Cameron have all expressed their displeasure at the Scottish justice minister’s decision to release the only individual to have been convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller couldn’t resist adding his two cents. He has characterized the release as an act that brings “comfort to terrorists” everywhere and “a mockery of the rule of law.”
Complicating matters further are accusations that Al-Megrahi’s release was a condition for Britain being awarded lucrative oil, gas and hotel contracts, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies. Yet, the Libyan president’s son Seif Al-Islam says the decision to free this terminally ill individual was always tied to trade, while a leaked letter from Downing Street to the Libyan leader makes clear that Al-Megrahi’s homecoming has been brewing ever since the G8 summit held in Italy early in July.
Many Scots believe that their government was set up by Westminster to be Britain’s patsy and are angry that so much enmity is coming their way from across the Atlantic. They may have a point...
... the Libyan authorities are being heavily criticized for giving the returnee a warm welcome. Western politicians and many families of Lockerbie victims consider this shameful, yet Libya has always protested Al-Megrahi’s innocence while ordinary Libyans view him as a loyal son of the soil who sacrificed his freedom for the good of his country. Al-Megrahi has consistently said there has been a miscarriage of justice and says he will release documentation to the British public to prove it now that his appeal has been quashed. If the appeal was heard “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive,” said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Pan Am 103.
Those who are incensed that Al-Megrahi gets to spend his last days with his wife and five children might at least contemplate the possibility that there was, indeed, a miscarriage of justice. Firstly, the case against him was circumstantial and relied heavily upon the testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who said he recognized Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothing in his shop, fragments of which were later found in the incendiary suitcase.
Yet, Gauci was allegedly shown photographs of Al-Megrahi and others prior to the line-up when he failed to identify him. He was then instructed to focus on Al-Megrahi’s picture when he insisted that the person who bought his clothes was much older than the man in the photo. He is also said to have been coached by prosecutors prior to giving testimony and is thought to have been offered millions of dollars in bribes to testify at trial.
When Gauci was first called to Amsterdam for the identification parade he initially said that Al-Megrahi was “not exactly the man I saw in the shop . . .” He also claimed that his buyer was over 6 feet tall whereas Al-Megrahi is much shorter at 5 feet eight inches. (...)
Moreover, a timer, a key piece of the prosecution’s material evidence, is believed to be a fake after Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer, admitted that he lied about its origins. Lumpert also said that the first time he had viewed the timer it had a brown circuit board whereas his former Zurich employer MEBO had only exported green circuit boards to Libya. Yet when the board was produced during the trial Lumpert noticed it was carbonized indicating it had subsequently been tampered with.
Last October, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and identified six grounds for an appeal. One of these grounds may be the fact that some 18 hours prior to the New York bound Pan Am flight taking off, there had been a break-in at Heathrow’s restricted baggage area, which security officials described as a “very deliberate act” by professionals. This evidence of baggage tampering was not disclosed to the defense team prior to Al-Megrahi’s trial.
Surely, even those who doggedly insist upon Al-Megrahi’s culpability must accept that there are certainly strong reasons for doubt. And if justice hasn’t been served, this wouldn’t be the first time that British courts got it wrong. In 1991, the so-called Birmingham Six were released on appeal after serving 16 years in prison while the Guildford Four were jailed for 15 years on a false conviction.
Lastly, if Robert Mueller considers Al-Megrahi’s release “a mockery of the rule of law,” what does he say about another 1988 civil aviation tragedy?
On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 while flying within Iranian air space en route to Dubai. On that day, all 290 passengers and crew were killed, including 66 children. Ship’s Capt William C. Rogers III later said he had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat Fighter (as though there is any resemblance), yet there was no Lockerbie-style trial for him. Instead, he became the commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group.
The US government issued notes of regret but never admitted wrongdoing or gave Iran an apology. To add insult to injury, then US Vice President George H W Bush told the UN that the Vincennes had acted appropriately and dismissed the tragedy as a wartime incident although Tehran and Washington were not at war. And US Ambassador to Britain Charles H Price II actually sent Capt Rogers a congratulatory message, which read “I join other Americans in congratulating you for having done your duty.”
The US did, however, shell out $61.8 million to victim’s families, which is a far cry from the $1.5 billion that Libya was pressured to pay to the Lockerbie families.
The double standard here is extraordinary. Al-Megrahi, who may or may not be responsible for Lockerbie, served years behind bars, is nearing the end, and may never get the opportunity to clear his name. But Capt Rogers, who is definitely culpable for the death of 290 innocents, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was allowed to pursue his career with honor. Where is the international outrage about that?
The repatriation to Libya on compassionate grounds of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi has caused a firestorm in Britain and the US.
President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party David Cameron have all expressed their displeasure at the Scottish justice minister’s decision to release the only individual to have been convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller couldn’t resist adding his two cents. He has characterized the release as an act that brings “comfort to terrorists” everywhere and “a mockery of the rule of law.”
Complicating matters further are accusations that Al-Megrahi’s release was a condition for Britain being awarded lucrative oil, gas and hotel contracts, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies. Yet, the Libyan president’s son Seif Al-Islam says the decision to free this terminally ill individual was always tied to trade, while a leaked letter from Downing Street to the Libyan leader makes clear that Al-Megrahi’s homecoming has been brewing ever since the G8 summit held in Italy early in July.
Many Scots believe that their government was set up by Westminster to be Britain’s patsy and are angry that so much enmity is coming their way from across the Atlantic. They may have a point...
... the Libyan authorities are being heavily criticized for giving the returnee a warm welcome. Western politicians and many families of Lockerbie victims consider this shameful, yet Libya has always protested Al-Megrahi’s innocence while ordinary Libyans view him as a loyal son of the soil who sacrificed his freedom for the good of his country. Al-Megrahi has consistently said there has been a miscarriage of justice and says he will release documentation to the British public to prove it now that his appeal has been quashed. If the appeal was heard “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive,” said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Pan Am 103.
Those who are incensed that Al-Megrahi gets to spend his last days with his wife and five children might at least contemplate the possibility that there was, indeed, a miscarriage of justice. Firstly, the case against him was circumstantial and relied heavily upon the testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who said he recognized Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothing in his shop, fragments of which were later found in the incendiary suitcase.
Yet, Gauci was allegedly shown photographs of Al-Megrahi and others prior to the line-up when he failed to identify him. He was then instructed to focus on Al-Megrahi’s picture when he insisted that the person who bought his clothes was much older than the man in the photo. He is also said to have been coached by prosecutors prior to giving testimony and is thought to have been offered millions of dollars in bribes to testify at trial.
When Gauci was first called to Amsterdam for the identification parade he initially said that Al-Megrahi was “not exactly the man I saw in the shop . . .” He also claimed that his buyer was over 6 feet tall whereas Al-Megrahi is much shorter at 5 feet eight inches. (...)
Moreover, a timer, a key piece of the prosecution’s material evidence, is believed to be a fake after Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer, admitted that he lied about its origins. Lumpert also said that the first time he had viewed the timer it had a brown circuit board whereas his former Zurich employer MEBO had only exported green circuit boards to Libya. Yet when the board was produced during the trial Lumpert noticed it was carbonized indicating it had subsequently been tampered with.
Last October, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and identified six grounds for an appeal. One of these grounds may be the fact that some 18 hours prior to the New York bound Pan Am flight taking off, there had been a break-in at Heathrow’s restricted baggage area, which security officials described as a “very deliberate act” by professionals. This evidence of baggage tampering was not disclosed to the defense team prior to Al-Megrahi’s trial.
Surely, even those who doggedly insist upon Al-Megrahi’s culpability must accept that there are certainly strong reasons for doubt. And if justice hasn’t been served, this wouldn’t be the first time that British courts got it wrong. In 1991, the so-called Birmingham Six were released on appeal after serving 16 years in prison while the Guildford Four were jailed for 15 years on a false conviction.
Lastly, if Robert Mueller considers Al-Megrahi’s release “a mockery of the rule of law,” what does he say about another 1988 civil aviation tragedy?
On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 while flying within Iranian air space en route to Dubai. On that day, all 290 passengers and crew were killed, including 66 children. Ship’s Capt William C. Rogers III later said he had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat Fighter (as though there is any resemblance), yet there was no Lockerbie-style trial for him. Instead, he became the commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group.
The US government issued notes of regret but never admitted wrongdoing or gave Iran an apology. To add insult to injury, then US Vice President George H W Bush told the UN that the Vincennes had acted appropriately and dismissed the tragedy as a wartime incident although Tehran and Washington were not at war. And US Ambassador to Britain Charles H Price II actually sent Capt Rogers a congratulatory message, which read “I join other Americans in congratulating you for having done your duty.”
The US did, however, shell out $61.8 million to victim’s families, which is a far cry from the $1.5 billion that Libya was pressured to pay to the Lockerbie families.
The double standard here is extraordinary. Al-Megrahi, who may or may not be responsible for Lockerbie, served years behind bars, is nearing the end, and may never get the opportunity to clear his name. But Capt Rogers, who is definitely culpable for the death of 290 innocents, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was allowed to pursue his career with honor. Where is the international outrage about that?
Medical advice on Libyan bomber 'in doubt'
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.
Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor's expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.
The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment. (...)
Mr MacAskill has said he based his decision to release Megrahi on the opinions of a range of experts.
But this is contradicted by a decisive report sent to Mr MacAskill on 10 August.
While it noted that four prostate cancer specialists – two oncologists and two urologists – were consulted, the summary said: "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say." (...)
A Scottish Government justice spokeswoman again insisted Mr MacAskill had relied on a range of evidence rather than the opinion of one doctor.
"The medical advice before the justice secretary consisted of a report from the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care, who had access to all Mr al-Megrahi's medical records.
"That report is clear. Taking all the medical advice into account, the director's view is that 'the clinical assessment is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient'," she said.
"It was on that clear medical advice and a recommendation from the governor and the parole board, that Mr al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, that the justice secretary based his decision."
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.
Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor's expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.
The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment. (...)
Mr MacAskill has said he based his decision to release Megrahi on the opinions of a range of experts.
But this is contradicted by a decisive report sent to Mr MacAskill on 10 August.
While it noted that four prostate cancer specialists – two oncologists and two urologists – were consulted, the summary said: "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say." (...)
A Scottish Government justice spokeswoman again insisted Mr MacAskill had relied on a range of evidence rather than the opinion of one doctor.
"The medical advice before the justice secretary consisted of a report from the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care, who had access to all Mr al-Megrahi's medical records.
"That report is clear. Taking all the medical advice into account, the director's view is that 'the clinical assessment is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient'," she said.
"It was on that clear medical advice and a recommendation from the governor and the parole board, that Mr al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, that the justice secretary based his decision."
Brown: I played no role in the release of Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Gordon Brown finally spoke out about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing but was condemned for maintaining a "Trappist silence" on whether or not it was the right thing to do.
Political opponents mocked his refusal to comment on Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, branding it a "failure of leadership" and a "masterclass in evasion", that would lead people to suspect the Prime Minister had something to hide.
Mr Brown broke his silence as the Scottish Government said it would publish details of what was said in the meeting in Greenock Prison between the Justice Secretary and the Libyan prisoner.
The notes and "all relevant information" on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release will be made public before a debate in the Scottish Parliament next Wednesday. (...)
Mr Brown broke his silence on Megrahi's release at a joint press conference with his Israeli counterpart Benyamin Netanyahu.
Asked whether he thought it was the right decision to release Megrahi, the PM said his first thoughts were with the families of the Lockerbie victims and then referred to how "angry" and "repulsed" he was at the hero's welcome afforded the Libyan at Tripoli airport.
"When I met Colonel Gaddafi over the summer, I made it absolutely clear to him that we had no role in making the decision about Megrahi's future because it was a quasi-judicial matter, because it was a matter legislated for by the Scottish Parliament and not by us, it was a matter over which we could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
Mr Brown stressed: "I want to make it clear, however, that whatever the decision that was made on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Parliament, our resolve to fight terrorism is absolute..."
Whitehall sources told The Herald the PM was determined to stick to not commenting on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Former Labour minister, Brian Wilson, however, described it as "pretty odd". He said the charge of being "the guy who's never around when there's a problem" was so blatantly obvious that "you would have thought there would have been some pre-emptive strategy which went beyond a Trappist silence".
[A further article in the same newspaper by chief UK political correspondent Torcuil Crichton is headed "Evasive Brown leaves himself open to ridicule". An editorial headed "Brown's silence" contains the following paragraphs:
'The nature of Mr Brown's bind is self-evident. If he condemns Kenny MacAskill's decision, he risks damaging relations with Libya and Alex Salmond would be quick to condemn him for interfering in what is a devolved matter. Conversely, if he condones it, he will draw to himself the fire currently directed at the SNP administration at Holyrood and further enrage the Americans. Yesterday's revelations about CIA interrogation techniques under George W Bush suggest the US has little to teach Britain about justice, but there is nothing to be gained by alienating our main ally.
'Mr Brown is right to repeat that this was a quasi-judicial decision that could be made only by the Scottish Justice Secretary. However, he should be more forthcoming about the terms in which he discussed this matter with the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, when the two met in July at the G8 summit in Italy, especially since the latter's insistence on thanking "my friend Brown" for helping secure Megrahi's release. We also need to know what transpired in Corfu when Business Secretary Lord Mandelson bumped into Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, who complicated matters by claiming that whenever he discussed trade deals, the prisoner's release was "always on the negotiating table". Unless the British government is prepared to publish notes from these meetings that confirm the British stance, the suspicion will remain that Megrahi's release and the dropping of his appeal are in some way linked to the decision to release him on compassionate grounds. The Westminster government should also release details of the prisoner transfer agreement made between Britain and Libya following Tony Blair's "deal in the desert". So far, it has refused to do so.
'The British government's coyness in this business contrasts with the stance taken at Holyrood, where Mr MacAskill yesterday undertook to publish "all relevant information" on both the prisoner transfer application that was refused and the prisoner's plea for compassionate release. Presumably, this will include notes of the Justice Secretary's meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison. This is welcome and is the least he owes relatives of the bereaved. Ultimately, they should also be party to the detail of the grounds for allowing the second appeal, abandoned last week. It will be no bad thing if the pressure for a public inquiry mounts as a consequence.']
Gordon Brown finally spoke out about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing but was condemned for maintaining a "Trappist silence" on whether or not it was the right thing to do.
Political opponents mocked his refusal to comment on Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, branding it a "failure of leadership" and a "masterclass in evasion", that would lead people to suspect the Prime Minister had something to hide.
Mr Brown broke his silence as the Scottish Government said it would publish details of what was said in the meeting in Greenock Prison between the Justice Secretary and the Libyan prisoner.
The notes and "all relevant information" on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release will be made public before a debate in the Scottish Parliament next Wednesday. (...)
Mr Brown broke his silence on Megrahi's release at a joint press conference with his Israeli counterpart Benyamin Netanyahu.
Asked whether he thought it was the right decision to release Megrahi, the PM said his first thoughts were with the families of the Lockerbie victims and then referred to how "angry" and "repulsed" he was at the hero's welcome afforded the Libyan at Tripoli airport.
"When I met Colonel Gaddafi over the summer, I made it absolutely clear to him that we had no role in making the decision about Megrahi's future because it was a quasi-judicial matter, because it was a matter legislated for by the Scottish Parliament and not by us, it was a matter over which we could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
Mr Brown stressed: "I want to make it clear, however, that whatever the decision that was made on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Parliament, our resolve to fight terrorism is absolute..."
Whitehall sources told The Herald the PM was determined to stick to not commenting on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Former Labour minister, Brian Wilson, however, described it as "pretty odd". He said the charge of being "the guy who's never around when there's a problem" was so blatantly obvious that "you would have thought there would have been some pre-emptive strategy which went beyond a Trappist silence".
[A further article in the same newspaper by chief UK political correspondent Torcuil Crichton is headed "Evasive Brown leaves himself open to ridicule". An editorial headed "Brown's silence" contains the following paragraphs:
'The nature of Mr Brown's bind is self-evident. If he condemns Kenny MacAskill's decision, he risks damaging relations with Libya and Alex Salmond would be quick to condemn him for interfering in what is a devolved matter. Conversely, if he condones it, he will draw to himself the fire currently directed at the SNP administration at Holyrood and further enrage the Americans. Yesterday's revelations about CIA interrogation techniques under George W Bush suggest the US has little to teach Britain about justice, but there is nothing to be gained by alienating our main ally.
'Mr Brown is right to repeat that this was a quasi-judicial decision that could be made only by the Scottish Justice Secretary. However, he should be more forthcoming about the terms in which he discussed this matter with the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, when the two met in July at the G8 summit in Italy, especially since the latter's insistence on thanking "my friend Brown" for helping secure Megrahi's release. We also need to know what transpired in Corfu when Business Secretary Lord Mandelson bumped into Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, who complicated matters by claiming that whenever he discussed trade deals, the prisoner's release was "always on the negotiating table". Unless the British government is prepared to publish notes from these meetings that confirm the British stance, the suspicion will remain that Megrahi's release and the dropping of his appeal are in some way linked to the decision to release him on compassionate grounds. The Westminster government should also release details of the prisoner transfer agreement made between Britain and Libya following Tony Blair's "deal in the desert". So far, it has refused to do so.
'The British government's coyness in this business contrasts with the stance taken at Holyrood, where Mr MacAskill yesterday undertook to publish "all relevant information" on both the prisoner transfer application that was refused and the prisoner's plea for compassionate release. Presumably, this will include notes of the Justice Secretary's meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison. This is welcome and is the least he owes relatives of the bereaved. Ultimately, they should also be party to the detail of the grounds for allowing the second appeal, abandoned last week. It will be no bad thing if the pressure for a public inquiry mounts as a consequence.']
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Lawyers back decision to free Lockerbie bomber - Poll
A poll of Scottish lawyers by Scottish Legal News has backed Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds.
The decision by the Scottish Government to release terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi - convicted in 2001 for the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988 - has sparked international debate.
However, a survey carried out by Scottish Legal News showed that more than two-thirds of lawyers supported the Justice Secretary's controversial ruling.
We asked: "Was the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, right to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds?"
A total of 424 readers responded to the survey, with two-thirds (67.9 per cent) saying 'Yes', the minister made the right call. Nearly a third of respondents (32.1 per cent) disagreed with the decision.
Scottish Legal News editor, Baktosch Gillan said: "The message from our readers is emphatic. A majority of two-thirds support the decision of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to free Megrahi.
"I had expected that opinion would be more evenly divided, but plainly the majority of the Scottish lawyers who responded are proud of their distinctive legal system and they believe that if it contains an element of compassion then it ought to be implemented."
One solicitor, who has practised law in both Scotland and New York, spoke of her "pride" in being a member of a Scottish legal system that can release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
She added: "I think that this shows a legal system based on greater and higher values of natural justice and humanity. If tried and convicted in New York, al-Megrahi would certainly have faced the death penalty for his crimes.
"The most just and compassionate action for the Scottish justice system could take was to let the man go home to die.
"What a wonderful moral action, which can only be a good example to the rest of the world - no matter what political fallout ensues. Good for Scottish justice - a brave and compassionate decision!"
One lawyer wrote: "The justice secretary was correct. Compassion and forgiveness are pillars of the criminal justice system. Without them, rehabilitation of offenders and closure for victims and their families would be impossible."
Another said: "Scotland is a civilised and compassionate country. Regardless of guilt, it is only right that Mr al-Megrahi is allowed to die with his family around him. What possible good would it do to the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster to have him die in prison?
"The reaction from the American victims' families only goes to show that America has a long way to go before their so-called Christian society demonstrates the levels of forgiveness and compassion which the Scottish victims have shown."
[This was sent to me by a reader. It is genuine, but I am unable to provide a link.
Another kind reader has provided this link.]
The decision by the Scottish Government to release terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi - convicted in 2001 for the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988 - has sparked international debate.
However, a survey carried out by Scottish Legal News showed that more than two-thirds of lawyers supported the Justice Secretary's controversial ruling.
We asked: "Was the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, right to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds?"
A total of 424 readers responded to the survey, with two-thirds (67.9 per cent) saying 'Yes', the minister made the right call. Nearly a third of respondents (32.1 per cent) disagreed with the decision.
Scottish Legal News editor, Baktosch Gillan said: "The message from our readers is emphatic. A majority of two-thirds support the decision of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to free Megrahi.
"I had expected that opinion would be more evenly divided, but plainly the majority of the Scottish lawyers who responded are proud of their distinctive legal system and they believe that if it contains an element of compassion then it ought to be implemented."
One solicitor, who has practised law in both Scotland and New York, spoke of her "pride" in being a member of a Scottish legal system that can release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
She added: "I think that this shows a legal system based on greater and higher values of natural justice and humanity. If tried and convicted in New York, al-Megrahi would certainly have faced the death penalty for his crimes.
"The most just and compassionate action for the Scottish justice system could take was to let the man go home to die.
"What a wonderful moral action, which can only be a good example to the rest of the world - no matter what political fallout ensues. Good for Scottish justice - a brave and compassionate decision!"
One lawyer wrote: "The justice secretary was correct. Compassion and forgiveness are pillars of the criminal justice system. Without them, rehabilitation of offenders and closure for victims and their families would be impossible."
Another said: "Scotland is a civilised and compassionate country. Regardless of guilt, it is only right that Mr al-Megrahi is allowed to die with his family around him. What possible good would it do to the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster to have him die in prison?
"The reaction from the American victims' families only goes to show that America has a long way to go before their so-called Christian society demonstrates the levels of forgiveness and compassion which the Scottish victims have shown."
[This was sent to me by a reader. It is genuine, but I am unable to provide a link.
Another kind reader has provided this link.]
Scots opinion rallies behind justice secretary
[This is the heading on a SNP (Scottish National Party) news release. It reads in part:]
The Catholic Church yesterday joined the Church of Scotland in supporting Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, said the decision was a sign of strength and would be supported by many Scots.
His move comes as church leaders, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country voiced backing for the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
Radio listeners and newspapers readers have sprung to the defence of Kenny MacAskill after criticism of his decision.
With talk from the US of a threatened boycott on Scotland and Scottish goods as a protest against the decision to release the terminally-ill Libyan, many Scots are now voicing their belief that Mr MacAskill’s decision was morally correct.
SNP MSP Michael Matheson, deputy convener of the Scottish Parliament's External Relations Committee, said:
“Kenny MacAskill has answered his critics and demonstrated to Parliament that at all times he followed the correct procedures in reaching what is the correct decision.
“With Scotland’s churches, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country agreeing with this decision and the values embodied in it it is clear that support for Mr MacAskill is growing as Scots and others around the world understand the decision and the reasons for it.
“The politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision has been deeply disappointing and I welcome the comments and interventions by Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm and Lib Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro. (...)
Archbishop Mario Conti:“I personally, and many others in the Catholic community admired the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion which is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland’s Government should operate. The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength. Despite contrary voices I believe it is a decision which will be a source of pride for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community. I have been impressed by the expressions of understanding and insight from Dr Jim Swire and other relatives who lost loved ones on the Pan Am flight who have acknowledged both the rightness of the gesture of compassion and the doubts as to the saftey of the original conviction."
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland:"This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not chose mercy? I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims' families and I respect their views, but to them, I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge."
Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm:“Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of Churches across Scotland. “Does he share my revulsion, however, by what happened when Al-Megrahi returned to Libya, but does he accept that there is nothing that anyone in this Parliament could have done to stop that? And does he also agree that it [Libya reaction] is entirely irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the original decision?”
Lib-Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro: “I’m sure there are plenty of MSPs with the same thoughts as I have. I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made. It was obvious from the doctors that Megrahi is suffering with cancer and that Megrahi’s health was going down every day and with that the correct thing happened and that MacAskill let Megrahi go with the information he had. I believe that MacAskill did the thing that was right and the ting that people will be looking on for years to come and that every time they raise the question of how well MacAskill did because of the rules and laws of Scotland. The right thing happened and MacAskill made the right and correct decision. With that it doesn’t give me any troubles whatsoever that there are some who are complaining.”
Prime Minister’s spokesman when asked whether the release gave succour to terrorists, said: "I don't think it does. This was a decision taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary in accordance with the laws of Scotland. I don't see that anyone can argue that this gives succour."
The Catholic Church yesterday joined the Church of Scotland in supporting Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, said the decision was a sign of strength and would be supported by many Scots.
His move comes as church leaders, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country voiced backing for the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
Radio listeners and newspapers readers have sprung to the defence of Kenny MacAskill after criticism of his decision.
With talk from the US of a threatened boycott on Scotland and Scottish goods as a protest against the decision to release the terminally-ill Libyan, many Scots are now voicing their belief that Mr MacAskill’s decision was morally correct.
SNP MSP Michael Matheson, deputy convener of the Scottish Parliament's External Relations Committee, said:
“Kenny MacAskill has answered his critics and demonstrated to Parliament that at all times he followed the correct procedures in reaching what is the correct decision.
“With Scotland’s churches, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country agreeing with this decision and the values embodied in it it is clear that support for Mr MacAskill is growing as Scots and others around the world understand the decision and the reasons for it.
“The politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision has been deeply disappointing and I welcome the comments and interventions by Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm and Lib Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro. (...)
Archbishop Mario Conti:“I personally, and many others in the Catholic community admired the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion which is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland’s Government should operate. The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength. Despite contrary voices I believe it is a decision which will be a source of pride for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community. I have been impressed by the expressions of understanding and insight from Dr Jim Swire and other relatives who lost loved ones on the Pan Am flight who have acknowledged both the rightness of the gesture of compassion and the doubts as to the saftey of the original conviction."
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland:"This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not chose mercy? I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims' families and I respect their views, but to them, I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge."
Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm:“Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of Churches across Scotland. “Does he share my revulsion, however, by what happened when Al-Megrahi returned to Libya, but does he accept that there is nothing that anyone in this Parliament could have done to stop that? And does he also agree that it [Libya reaction] is entirely irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the original decision?”
Lib-Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro: “I’m sure there are plenty of MSPs with the same thoughts as I have. I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made. It was obvious from the doctors that Megrahi is suffering with cancer and that Megrahi’s health was going down every day and with that the correct thing happened and that MacAskill let Megrahi go with the information he had. I believe that MacAskill did the thing that was right and the ting that people will be looking on for years to come and that every time they raise the question of how well MacAskill did because of the rules and laws of Scotland. The right thing happened and MacAskill made the right and correct decision. With that it doesn’t give me any troubles whatsoever that there are some who are complaining.”
Prime Minister’s spokesman when asked whether the release gave succour to terrorists, said: "I don't think it does. This was a decision taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary in accordance with the laws of Scotland. I don't see that anyone can argue that this gives succour."
The real scandal is the lost opportunity to uncover the conspirators behind the Lockerbie plot
[The following are excerpts from a column by Michael Binyon in The Times.]
Lord Mandelson, embarrassed by the Libyan insistence that al-Megrahi’s release was explicitly mentioned in talks on oil and gas contracts, insists that any such linkage was wrong, implausible and “actually quite offensive”.
He is wrong. It is by no means implausible. Realpolitik has always been a deciding factor in international negotiations. (...)
Of course such deals are offensive. Of course any linking of Lockerbie to Western oil interests is a dreadful insult to those still mourning their family members, friends and loved ones. But let no one think this would be the first such deal or even the first compromise over Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity.
From the start, politics have intervened. The fingers of suspicion after the Pan Am explosion in December 1988 pointed first to Iran. Only five months earlier an Iranian passenger jet was mistakenly shot down by the US warship Vincennes with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew. Compensation was paid. But the exact circumstances were never fully explained. Iran’s closest ally at the time was Syria, another country on the US terrorist watch-list. Syria had tried bombing an airliner before — and the bomber was caught before he boarded the El Al jet in Britain.
Intelligence information is not lacking. But after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the US needed Syria, and to a lesser extent Iran. The investigation instead seized on a lead pointing to Libya, possibly as terrorist subcontractors. That would prove politically easier to pursue.
For the sake of those relatives who have always questioned a sole Libyan responsibility, there must now be a full judicial inquiry. If this embarrasses Scottish justice, too bad. Courts have delivered unsafe verdicts before. The intelligence information, all of it, must come out. We may still never know who ordered the atrocity. But thanks to the bungling in Edinburgh, we have no mechanism for an inquiry — even if an angry America could now be persuaded to take part in one. What a tragedy.
Lord Mandelson, embarrassed by the Libyan insistence that al-Megrahi’s release was explicitly mentioned in talks on oil and gas contracts, insists that any such linkage was wrong, implausible and “actually quite offensive”.
He is wrong. It is by no means implausible. Realpolitik has always been a deciding factor in international negotiations. (...)
Of course such deals are offensive. Of course any linking of Lockerbie to Western oil interests is a dreadful insult to those still mourning their family members, friends and loved ones. But let no one think this would be the first such deal or even the first compromise over Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity.
From the start, politics have intervened. The fingers of suspicion after the Pan Am explosion in December 1988 pointed first to Iran. Only five months earlier an Iranian passenger jet was mistakenly shot down by the US warship Vincennes with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew. Compensation was paid. But the exact circumstances were never fully explained. Iran’s closest ally at the time was Syria, another country on the US terrorist watch-list. Syria had tried bombing an airliner before — and the bomber was caught before he boarded the El Al jet in Britain.
Intelligence information is not lacking. But after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the US needed Syria, and to a lesser extent Iran. The investigation instead seized on a lead pointing to Libya, possibly as terrorist subcontractors. That would prove politically easier to pursue.
For the sake of those relatives who have always questioned a sole Libyan responsibility, there must now be a full judicial inquiry. If this embarrasses Scottish justice, too bad. Courts have delivered unsafe verdicts before. The intelligence information, all of it, must come out. We may still never know who ordered the atrocity. But thanks to the bungling in Edinburgh, we have no mechanism for an inquiry — even if an angry America could now be persuaded to take part in one. What a tragedy.
MacAskill to survive as MSPs back off key vote
[This is the headline over David Maddox's report on yesterday's Scottish Parliament sitting in today's issue of The Scotsman. The following are excerpts.]
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is set to survive the storm of controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber after it emerged that opposition parties had backed off from a vote of no confidence [when the Parliament reconvenes next week].
MSPs have privately admitted they cannot agree on a such a move, The Scotsman has learned, despite indications over the weekend that they might be willing to see the Scottish Government fall over the issue. (...)
A debate has now been scheduled for next week, when it is likely that Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will join together to show that Mr MacAskill's decision was not supported by the majority of the parliament.
They believe this may go some way to repair the international damage done to Scotland's image. However, they will not force a no-confidence vote. (...)
While there was no sign of American fury over the decision to free Megrahi dissipating, leading figures in civic Scotland rallied to the beleaguered Mr MacAskill's defence.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland issued statements to say he had done the right thing.
Archbishop of Glasgow Mario Conti said: "I personally, and many others in the Catholic community, admired the decision to release al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion.
"The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed, in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength."
The Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk's church and society council, said: "This decision speaks to the world about what it is to be Scottish. One of the key defining marks of a nation is how it treats those who have chosen to hurt it."
There was political support for the justice secretary from outwith his own party. Former Labour first minister Henry McLeish, who is a friend of Mr MacAskill, gave his backing to the decision.
And former presiding officer and Liberal leader Lord David Steel said: "I think most opinion in Scotland is in favour of the decision to release him on compassionate grounds."
In the Holyrood chamber, Labour MSP and former minister Malcolm Chisholm broke ranks with his colleagues and attacked his own leadership over the "politicisation" of the decision. There was also support from the Greens.
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is set to survive the storm of controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber after it emerged that opposition parties had backed off from a vote of no confidence [when the Parliament reconvenes next week].
MSPs have privately admitted they cannot agree on a such a move, The Scotsman has learned, despite indications over the weekend that they might be willing to see the Scottish Government fall over the issue. (...)
A debate has now been scheduled for next week, when it is likely that Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will join together to show that Mr MacAskill's decision was not supported by the majority of the parliament.
They believe this may go some way to repair the international damage done to Scotland's image. However, they will not force a no-confidence vote. (...)
While there was no sign of American fury over the decision to free Megrahi dissipating, leading figures in civic Scotland rallied to the beleaguered Mr MacAskill's defence.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland issued statements to say he had done the right thing.
Archbishop of Glasgow Mario Conti said: "I personally, and many others in the Catholic community, admired the decision to release al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion.
"The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed, in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength."
The Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk's church and society council, said: "This decision speaks to the world about what it is to be Scottish. One of the key defining marks of a nation is how it treats those who have chosen to hurt it."
There was political support for the justice secretary from outwith his own party. Former Labour first minister Henry McLeish, who is a friend of Mr MacAskill, gave his backing to the decision.
And former presiding officer and Liberal leader Lord David Steel said: "I think most opinion in Scotland is in favour of the decision to release him on compassionate grounds."
In the Holyrood chamber, Labour MSP and former minister Malcolm Chisholm broke ranks with his colleagues and attacked his own leadership over the "politicisation" of the decision. There was also support from the Greens.
FBI chief cannot grasp the Christian ethos
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows.]
The United States has no provision in its justice system for compassion for those found guilty. As a result, it must be difficult for the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, to understand that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was acting in keeping with an established precedent under Scots law to sanction release when the death of a prisoner is imminent.
It is unprecedented for Mr Mueller, the FBI chief, to castigate the Justice Secretary of another sovereign nation for an action which complied with Scotland's law, taking account of humanity and mercy.
That Scotland does not have the death penalty, unlike the US, was one of the spurs that propelled me to visit Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, after the indictments on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were issued to ask him to allow his citizens to attend trial under Scots law. I feel vindicated that Megrahi is at least back home with his family, alive
My country, Scotland, is Christian and I believe Mr MacAskill's decision chimed with the Christian principle of attempting to extend love and mercy, even to one's presumed enemies. It is a tough doctrine to embrace if you believe the man to have been guilty, but easier for those of us who suspect the verdict was wrong. The Church of Scotland has publicly supported Megrahi's return to his family, whether guilty or not. And Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow says showing mercy is not a sign of weakness. To be honest, I cannot be sure I would have the compassion to do that if I believed him guilty. Mr MacAskill's was by far the harder choice.
By a humbler standard, I cannot understand how forcing Megrahi to die in prison when there was provision to extend him mercy could make anyone feel better. Since when have two wrongs made a right?
It is clear that Mr MacAskill, contrary to Mr Mueller's allegations, acted with great care in talking to and listening to those directly affected by the Lockerbie atrocity, including the American families. It is also untrue to state, as Mr Mueller does, that the Justice Secretary's action "makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy".
I regret deeply that continuing our search for the truth endangers the "certainty" so many relatives, especially in the US, have concerning Megrahi's conviction. But to search for the truth over so grave a matter does not constitute mockery.
It is clear that Mr Mueller has an interest in defending the evidence which his agency and his country's CIA played so great a part in garnering after the bombing. Mr Mueller should realise that a number of open-minded and observant relatives, as well as many others who have studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the verdict should not have been reached.
We welcomed Megrahi's second appeal and were aware that many feared its outcome. Yet in the shadow of death, Megrahi, who wants above all else to clear his name, decided to withdraw his appeal. He hoped this would increase the likelihood of his return to his family to die. What would you, dear reader, have done?
As relatives, we want to find the truth of why our families were not protected, despite timely warnings, and who killed them. I would be grateful if Mr Mueller could answer me this question: if it turns out that the verdict is wrong and that the real terrorists are not only free but aware that the evidence for a Libyan crime was fatally flawed, does that cause more harm to the "fight against terror" than freeing a dying man to spend his last days with his family?
We must wait to see what Megrahi's defence can produce. Let us hope it doesn't take another 12 years for the answers. The search for the truth will not go away. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has found grounds for suspecting there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Compassion for Megrahi is welcome in some quarters. It might be that withdrawal of Megrahi's second appeal, which had proceeded at a glacially slow pace, will actually speed up the search for the truth. That is my hope.
[The New York Times today carries a report on the subject of Mr Megrahi's compassionate release headlined "Fury grows over release of Lockerbie convict". It can be read here.]
The United States has no provision in its justice system for compassion for those found guilty. As a result, it must be difficult for the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, to understand that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was acting in keeping with an established precedent under Scots law to sanction release when the death of a prisoner is imminent.
It is unprecedented for Mr Mueller, the FBI chief, to castigate the Justice Secretary of another sovereign nation for an action which complied with Scotland's law, taking account of humanity and mercy.
That Scotland does not have the death penalty, unlike the US, was one of the spurs that propelled me to visit Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, after the indictments on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were issued to ask him to allow his citizens to attend trial under Scots law. I feel vindicated that Megrahi is at least back home with his family, alive
My country, Scotland, is Christian and I believe Mr MacAskill's decision chimed with the Christian principle of attempting to extend love and mercy, even to one's presumed enemies. It is a tough doctrine to embrace if you believe the man to have been guilty, but easier for those of us who suspect the verdict was wrong. The Church of Scotland has publicly supported Megrahi's return to his family, whether guilty or not. And Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow says showing mercy is not a sign of weakness. To be honest, I cannot be sure I would have the compassion to do that if I believed him guilty. Mr MacAskill's was by far the harder choice.
By a humbler standard, I cannot understand how forcing Megrahi to die in prison when there was provision to extend him mercy could make anyone feel better. Since when have two wrongs made a right?
It is clear that Mr MacAskill, contrary to Mr Mueller's allegations, acted with great care in talking to and listening to those directly affected by the Lockerbie atrocity, including the American families. It is also untrue to state, as Mr Mueller does, that the Justice Secretary's action "makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy".
I regret deeply that continuing our search for the truth endangers the "certainty" so many relatives, especially in the US, have concerning Megrahi's conviction. But to search for the truth over so grave a matter does not constitute mockery.
It is clear that Mr Mueller has an interest in defending the evidence which his agency and his country's CIA played so great a part in garnering after the bombing. Mr Mueller should realise that a number of open-minded and observant relatives, as well as many others who have studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the verdict should not have been reached.
We welcomed Megrahi's second appeal and were aware that many feared its outcome. Yet in the shadow of death, Megrahi, who wants above all else to clear his name, decided to withdraw his appeal. He hoped this would increase the likelihood of his return to his family to die. What would you, dear reader, have done?
As relatives, we want to find the truth of why our families were not protected, despite timely warnings, and who killed them. I would be grateful if Mr Mueller could answer me this question: if it turns out that the verdict is wrong and that the real terrorists are not only free but aware that the evidence for a Libyan crime was fatally flawed, does that cause more harm to the "fight against terror" than freeing a dying man to spend his last days with his family?
We must wait to see what Megrahi's defence can produce. Let us hope it doesn't take another 12 years for the answers. The search for the truth will not go away. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has found grounds for suspecting there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Compassion for Megrahi is welcome in some quarters. It might be that withdrawal of Megrahi's second appeal, which had proceeded at a glacially slow pace, will actually speed up the search for the truth. That is my hope.
[The New York Times today carries a report on the subject of Mr Megrahi's compassionate release headlined "Fury grows over release of Lockerbie convict". It can be read here.]
Monday, 24 August 2009
MacAskill defends decision as rivals fail to land blows
[This is the headline over the principal report in Tuesday's edition of The Herald on the Scottish Parliament's sitting to hear the Justice Secretary's statement on his decision to grant Abdelbaset Megahi compassionate release. The following are excerpts.]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill claimed yesterday that a child killer had been among prisoners freed on compassionate grounds by the previous Holyrood administration, as he defended his handling of the Megrahi decision under pressure from MSPs.
He told the emergency session of parliament that Libya had reneged on a promise to keep the arrival of Megrahi a low-key affair, but he made a pledge to MSPs that he was looking to publish as much correspondence and documents about the affair as possible - including notes of his controversial meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison.
He also revealed that in advising him against moving Megrahi from prison to a residence outside, the police had said the security implications would be severe, requiring the use of 48 officers.
While few blows were landed on Mr MacAskill during questions from opponents, Labour did suffer a blow of their own when former minister Malcolm Chisholm undermined his leader Iain Gray by coming resolutely to the defence of last week's decision.
Mr Chisholm said: "Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland."
He added that, although the scenes that greeted Megrahi's return had caused "revulsion", there was nothing that anyone here could have done to stop that and it was irrelevant to the original decision. (...)
Conservative leader Annabel Goldie told MSPs: "If Mr Megrahi's condition is so severe that keeping him in prison is inhumane, why could he not have been released to a secure house or a hospice or a hospital in Scotland?
"Is this SNP government seriously suggesting that our Scottish Police who coped so admirably with security for G8 leaders could not adequately protect Mr Megrahi?
"I know he said in his statement that it would take 48 police officers to look after Mr Megrahi in Scotland. That is a small price to pay for just a few weeks. Scotland's reputation on the world stage is worth far more."
But Mr MacAskill pointed to advice from the police that "the security implications of such a move would be severe" and he added that it was a "ludicrous idea to suggest we could send Mr Megrahi to a hospice and turn that into a travelling circus."
He later replied to a similar question from Labour's Karen Gillon, saying: "I was not prepared to foist the encumbrance of Mr al Megrahi on any hospice in Scotland requiring to deal with the terminally ill in their last moments. That would be unfair on any of them. I and I alone - ruled that out."
Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken accused Scottish ministers of naivety and inexperience in international affairs, resulting in them becoming pawns in a bigger game, while Patrick Harvie of the Greens argued that in the long run it was vital that questions were answered about the safety of the Lockerbie conviction, the way it was obtained, and the process behind the release.
While he welcomed Mr MacAskill's pledge to release as much material as possible, he said it was unacceptable that the UK Government was not prepared to promise the same stance.
[Another article in the same newspaper, headlined "Only the French have faced so much wrath from the US" contains the following:
'The furore caused by his decision to show clemency to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi left Scotland's Justice Secretary facing worldwide scrutiny and, from the United States, a level of criticism seldom directed towards its allies.
'Only the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", as Groundskeeper Willie in The Simpsons once labelled the French for refusing to join the US coaliton in Iraq, have come anywhere close in recent years to receiving the level of abuse being hurled at Kenny MacAskill.
'But as he faced his domestic critics in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, it was as much a test of them as Mr MacAskill himself.
'Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott have never had to make - and are never likely to have to make - such a judgment.
'For the past few days, they've been able to have a free go at him. Yesterday, posturing had to be replaced by sharp questions if their criticisms of him were to remain credible.
'What passes for forensic interrogation in the Scottish Parliament did not rise above its usual standard, though the format of one question and no opportunity for a follow-up did not help.'
A further article under the headline "Brown under fire over ‘cowardly silence’" deals with the growing criticism of the Prime Minister's silence on the issue.]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill claimed yesterday that a child killer had been among prisoners freed on compassionate grounds by the previous Holyrood administration, as he defended his handling of the Megrahi decision under pressure from MSPs.
He told the emergency session of parliament that Libya had reneged on a promise to keep the arrival of Megrahi a low-key affair, but he made a pledge to MSPs that he was looking to publish as much correspondence and documents about the affair as possible - including notes of his controversial meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison.
He also revealed that in advising him against moving Megrahi from prison to a residence outside, the police had said the security implications would be severe, requiring the use of 48 officers.
While few blows were landed on Mr MacAskill during questions from opponents, Labour did suffer a blow of their own when former minister Malcolm Chisholm undermined his leader Iain Gray by coming resolutely to the defence of last week's decision.
Mr Chisholm said: "Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland."
He added that, although the scenes that greeted Megrahi's return had caused "revulsion", there was nothing that anyone here could have done to stop that and it was irrelevant to the original decision. (...)
Conservative leader Annabel Goldie told MSPs: "If Mr Megrahi's condition is so severe that keeping him in prison is inhumane, why could he not have been released to a secure house or a hospice or a hospital in Scotland?
"Is this SNP government seriously suggesting that our Scottish Police who coped so admirably with security for G8 leaders could not adequately protect Mr Megrahi?
"I know he said in his statement that it would take 48 police officers to look after Mr Megrahi in Scotland. That is a small price to pay for just a few weeks. Scotland's reputation on the world stage is worth far more."
But Mr MacAskill pointed to advice from the police that "the security implications of such a move would be severe" and he added that it was a "ludicrous idea to suggest we could send Mr Megrahi to a hospice and turn that into a travelling circus."
He later replied to a similar question from Labour's Karen Gillon, saying: "I was not prepared to foist the encumbrance of Mr al Megrahi on any hospice in Scotland requiring to deal with the terminally ill in their last moments. That would be unfair on any of them. I and I alone - ruled that out."
Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken accused Scottish ministers of naivety and inexperience in international affairs, resulting in them becoming pawns in a bigger game, while Patrick Harvie of the Greens argued that in the long run it was vital that questions were answered about the safety of the Lockerbie conviction, the way it was obtained, and the process behind the release.
While he welcomed Mr MacAskill's pledge to release as much material as possible, he said it was unacceptable that the UK Government was not prepared to promise the same stance.
[Another article in the same newspaper, headlined "Only the French have faced so much wrath from the US" contains the following:
'The furore caused by his decision to show clemency to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi left Scotland's Justice Secretary facing worldwide scrutiny and, from the United States, a level of criticism seldom directed towards its allies.
'Only the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", as Groundskeeper Willie in The Simpsons once labelled the French for refusing to join the US coaliton in Iraq, have come anywhere close in recent years to receiving the level of abuse being hurled at Kenny MacAskill.
'But as he faced his domestic critics in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, it was as much a test of them as Mr MacAskill himself.
'Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott have never had to make - and are never likely to have to make - such a judgment.
'For the past few days, they've been able to have a free go at him. Yesterday, posturing had to be replaced by sharp questions if their criticisms of him were to remain credible.
'What passes for forensic interrogation in the Scottish Parliament did not rise above its usual standard, though the format of one question and no opportunity for a follow-up did not help.'
A further article under the headline "Brown under fire over ‘cowardly silence’" deals with the growing criticism of the Prime Minister's silence on the issue.]
MacAskill followed the letter of the law
Megrahi's release is controversial. But no one can dispute the central defence for Kenny MacAskill's decision
It was a grim, dogged, desperate defence by the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, of his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Adelbaset al-Megrahi, in order to let him die in Libya with his family. It was one of the most uncomfortable ministerial statements I have ever witnessed. The anguish of this decision, and its aftermath, were etched on MacAskill's face as he restated the legal grounds for what was, arguably, the most controversial decision ever taken by a Scottish minister. At the end, he was still standing – if only just.
As the questioning dragged on, MacAskill's replies became shorter and shorter as his energy flagged and his patience wore out. Only briefly did he revive when the former Labour minister, Malcolm Chisholm, rose to defend him for his "courageous" decision, which he said was "entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland". Chisholm thus disowned the argument of his own leader, Iain Gray, that MacAskill had made "the wrong decision, in the wrong way with the wrong consequences". He would have let Megrahi rot in Greenock jail until he'd breathed his last. (...)
Compassion may not be the first thing people associate with Scots law which, in times past, had a reputation for austere and unforgiving justice. But MacAskill's defence is that he acted in accordance with the laws and values of Scotland – as indeed has been accepted now by No 10 in its statement today. The Scottish justice minister is a lawyer and something of a stickler for "due process" – for following the accepted rules for coming to a legal decision. Prisoners in Scotland, no matter their crime, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. When application has been made, and provided the medical evidence is sound, the justice minister is required to consult key authorities, including the Parole Board, the prison governor and the social work agencies. This he did. All these bodies recommended that Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds.
Of course, in the end, the decision is for the justice minister alone to take, and – as the Labour leader Iain Gray insisted – Kenny MacAskill could have exercised his discretion and refused to release Megrahi, claiming that the severity of his crime meant that it was not in the public interest, here or in America, that a terrorist should be seen to be given clemency. But MacAskill would have had to make a proper argument for this. It would not have been acceptable, for example, to say that for political reasons – to save the Scottish government from embarrassment – Megrahi should be denied compassion. Expediency is not due process.
So MacAskill took the toughest decision of his life and allowed a convicted mass murderer to be released so that he could return in triumph to Tripoli, with saltires flying on the tarmac, and be embraced by Muammar Gaddafi as a national hero. Tough call. I would not have liked to be in his shoes.
Being a lawyer made this a particularly difficult decision for MacAskill to defend, since he resorted to abstract legalistic concepts which seemed remote from the reality of what has happened, and did not connect with the emotional turmoil of the Lockerbie victims' families. He seemed insensitive, robotic, mechanical even as he was professing compassion. But that is rather the style of Scottish law, where levity is frowned upon and emotion avoided.
The argument is the whole of the law. MacAskill has been criticised for failing to keep parliament informed, for unwisely visiting Megrahi in jail, and for not exploring the possibility of the Lockerbie bomber being removed to a hospice in Scotland. But no one successfully challenged MacAskill's central defence that he had acted in accordance with the law.
Will the government fall? No. There may be a vote after parliament resumes next week, but there is no indication that the opposition parties are ready to bring down this minority administration and force an election. They could do this at any time since they have a clear majority of seats, but have no programme and no alternative first minister. Will Kenny MacAskill survive? He has the support of the first minister, his party, and of course Scots law. His decision has been endorsed by some influential voices in Scotland such as the Liberal Democrat Lord Steel, the former presiding officer, who said that the decision was correct under Scots law, and by the former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish. Indeed, it would be perverse for MacAskill to fall as a result of following the letter of the law. No one has suggested he has acted wrongly or outside his powers, or that there could be any legal challenge to what he has done.
The UK government has not challenged MacAskill's decision – whatever the Scottish Labour leader may say – and nor has Gordon Brown personally disowned it. No 10 says that it did not "boost terrorism", rejecting the charge made by the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, yesterday. And it has to be remembered that the process that led to the repatriation of Megrahi was initiated by the British government after the "deal in the desert" in 2007 between Tony Blair and Gadaffi. (...)
The real charge against Kenny MacAskill is that his communication skills are not up to explaining – in terms ordinary people can relate to – exactly why Megrahi has been released. The answer is of course that he is dying, and you cannot punish a dead man. Nor does the Scottish legal system support the principle of the death watch, under which prisoners are incarcerated under observation until legally dead. Others may disagree, and of course many in America believe that Megrahi should have been executed for his crimes. But that is simply the way things are done here. Kenny MacAskill has done his duty, though at immense personal and political cost.
[The above are excerpts from an article on The Guardian Comment is free website by the Scottish political commentator Iain Macwhirter.]
It was a grim, dogged, desperate defence by the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, of his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Adelbaset al-Megrahi, in order to let him die in Libya with his family. It was one of the most uncomfortable ministerial statements I have ever witnessed. The anguish of this decision, and its aftermath, were etched on MacAskill's face as he restated the legal grounds for what was, arguably, the most controversial decision ever taken by a Scottish minister. At the end, he was still standing – if only just.
As the questioning dragged on, MacAskill's replies became shorter and shorter as his energy flagged and his patience wore out. Only briefly did he revive when the former Labour minister, Malcolm Chisholm, rose to defend him for his "courageous" decision, which he said was "entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland". Chisholm thus disowned the argument of his own leader, Iain Gray, that MacAskill had made "the wrong decision, in the wrong way with the wrong consequences". He would have let Megrahi rot in Greenock jail until he'd breathed his last. (...)
Compassion may not be the first thing people associate with Scots law which, in times past, had a reputation for austere and unforgiving justice. But MacAskill's defence is that he acted in accordance with the laws and values of Scotland – as indeed has been accepted now by No 10 in its statement today. The Scottish justice minister is a lawyer and something of a stickler for "due process" – for following the accepted rules for coming to a legal decision. Prisoners in Scotland, no matter their crime, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. When application has been made, and provided the medical evidence is sound, the justice minister is required to consult key authorities, including the Parole Board, the prison governor and the social work agencies. This he did. All these bodies recommended that Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds.
Of course, in the end, the decision is for the justice minister alone to take, and – as the Labour leader Iain Gray insisted – Kenny MacAskill could have exercised his discretion and refused to release Megrahi, claiming that the severity of his crime meant that it was not in the public interest, here or in America, that a terrorist should be seen to be given clemency. But MacAskill would have had to make a proper argument for this. It would not have been acceptable, for example, to say that for political reasons – to save the Scottish government from embarrassment – Megrahi should be denied compassion. Expediency is not due process.
So MacAskill took the toughest decision of his life and allowed a convicted mass murderer to be released so that he could return in triumph to Tripoli, with saltires flying on the tarmac, and be embraced by Muammar Gaddafi as a national hero. Tough call. I would not have liked to be in his shoes.
Being a lawyer made this a particularly difficult decision for MacAskill to defend, since he resorted to abstract legalistic concepts which seemed remote from the reality of what has happened, and did not connect with the emotional turmoil of the Lockerbie victims' families. He seemed insensitive, robotic, mechanical even as he was professing compassion. But that is rather the style of Scottish law, where levity is frowned upon and emotion avoided.
The argument is the whole of the law. MacAskill has been criticised for failing to keep parliament informed, for unwisely visiting Megrahi in jail, and for not exploring the possibility of the Lockerbie bomber being removed to a hospice in Scotland. But no one successfully challenged MacAskill's central defence that he had acted in accordance with the law.
Will the government fall? No. There may be a vote after parliament resumes next week, but there is no indication that the opposition parties are ready to bring down this minority administration and force an election. They could do this at any time since they have a clear majority of seats, but have no programme and no alternative first minister. Will Kenny MacAskill survive? He has the support of the first minister, his party, and of course Scots law. His decision has been endorsed by some influential voices in Scotland such as the Liberal Democrat Lord Steel, the former presiding officer, who said that the decision was correct under Scots law, and by the former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish. Indeed, it would be perverse for MacAskill to fall as a result of following the letter of the law. No one has suggested he has acted wrongly or outside his powers, or that there could be any legal challenge to what he has done.
The UK government has not challenged MacAskill's decision – whatever the Scottish Labour leader may say – and nor has Gordon Brown personally disowned it. No 10 says that it did not "boost terrorism", rejecting the charge made by the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, yesterday. And it has to be remembered that the process that led to the repatriation of Megrahi was initiated by the British government after the "deal in the desert" in 2007 between Tony Blair and Gadaffi. (...)
The real charge against Kenny MacAskill is that his communication skills are not up to explaining – in terms ordinary people can relate to – exactly why Megrahi has been released. The answer is of course that he is dying, and you cannot punish a dead man. Nor does the Scottish legal system support the principle of the death watch, under which prisoners are incarcerated under observation until legally dead. Others may disagree, and of course many in America believe that Megrahi should have been executed for his crimes. But that is simply the way things are done here. Kenny MacAskill has done his duty, though at immense personal and political cost.
[The above are excerpts from an article on The Guardian Comment is free website by the Scottish political commentator Iain Macwhirter.]
Statement from Eddie MacKechnie, solicitor
I am very pleased that Baset has gone home to his wife, family and friends. I strongly believe both Lamin, my original client, and Baset are entirely innocent and thus victims.
To me Baset is a hero and deserved any hint of a hero's welcome he was allowed. He went with Lamin to Holland over 10 years ago expecting justice and never got it. He took the risk for his country and he was welcomed as a hero of his people not because he was ever a terrorist but because he is a son of Libya who suffered for her.
Of course I am sad he abandoned his Appeal he fought so very hard to obtain but I know he had no choice. Politics long usurped any role justice had to play.
The Justice Minister was right to release Baset. It was a decent decision. It was to be expected that as Minister he would support the conviction and laud the Judiciary, Prosecution and Police. It was striking he did not mention another Scottish, statutory body. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Had he forgotten their findings in favour of Baset and a new Appeal?
The inconvenient truth of this shocking case is that all is far from well within the Scottish legal system and sick to the core in scheming Whitehall. Pressurising a dying man, so desperate to return home, into dropping his legitimate appeal was beneath contempt but at least consistent. To suggest there was no such pressure is preposterous.
[Note: Eddie MacKechnie successfully defended Lamin Khalifa Fhimah at the Lockerbie trial in Camp Zeist.
He acted for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi from 2002-2005 and was responsible for the submission to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review commission which was successful.]
To me Baset is a hero and deserved any hint of a hero's welcome he was allowed. He went with Lamin to Holland over 10 years ago expecting justice and never got it. He took the risk for his country and he was welcomed as a hero of his people not because he was ever a terrorist but because he is a son of Libya who suffered for her.
Of course I am sad he abandoned his Appeal he fought so very hard to obtain but I know he had no choice. Politics long usurped any role justice had to play.
The Justice Minister was right to release Baset. It was a decent decision. It was to be expected that as Minister he would support the conviction and laud the Judiciary, Prosecution and Police. It was striking he did not mention another Scottish, statutory body. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Had he forgotten their findings in favour of Baset and a new Appeal?
The inconvenient truth of this shocking case is that all is far from well within the Scottish legal system and sick to the core in scheming Whitehall. Pressurising a dying man, so desperate to return home, into dropping his legitimate appeal was beneath contempt but at least consistent. To suggest there was no such pressure is preposterous.
[Note: Eddie MacKechnie successfully defended Lamin Khalifa Fhimah at the Lockerbie trial in Camp Zeist.
He acted for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi from 2002-2005 and was responsible for the submission to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review commission which was successful.]
The proceedings in the Scottish Parliament
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)