Support for the SNP remains strong despite opposition attacks over the last week according to a YouGov poll for the Daily Mail.
The poll of 1078 Scottish adults between the 24th and 26th August shows that
*More people support Alex Salmond as the best Scottish First Minister than support three opposition party leaders - combined!
*Support for Alex Salmond as First Minister was 32%, nearly 3 times higher than that for Ian Gray [Labour] and Annabel Goldie [Conservative] and over 5 times higher than Tavish Scott [Liberal Democrat] at 6%.
*A majority of Liberal Democrats - 57% - think releasing Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was the right decision, as do well over a third of Labour voters (39%).
*Two thirds of those questioned support Kenny MacAskill remaining as Justice Minister regardless of their view of the decision.
*More people support the SNP in the Scottish constituency vote than any other party.
*Support for the SNP at a Westminster election is 7 points higher than the 2005 result.
Commenting on the results SNP Depute Leader and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP said:
"The Justice Secretary made a brave and difficult decision, and this poll illustrates the underlying strength of the SNP and Scottish Government in these circumstances. The First Minister's ratings are three times higher than those of the Labour or Tory leaders in Scotland, and there is strong support for the Justice Secretary. The SNP maintains a Holyrood constituency poll lead, and our support is 7 points up on the last General Election.
"The Justice Secretary had to make a decision about Mr Al Megrahi. He had the courage to make the right decision for the right reasons, which attracts very substantial support in this poll. It will gather further support on that basis, because people recognise that Mr MacAskill upheld the due process of Scots Law in difficult circumstances. The poll also indicates how ill-judged it was for the other parties to politicise the issue, with, for example, a majority of Lib Dem voters in support of the Justice Secretary's decision."
[From a press release issued by the Scottish National Party.]
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Pan Am 103: The unanswered questions
[This is the headline over a long interview with Joe Mifsud published in the midweek edition of maltatoday. Mr Mifsud has followed, and written about, the Lockerbie case for many years. The following are excerpts from the interview.]
“Malta is still portrayed as the place where the terrorists met and executed their plan to kill 270 innocent people. Our national airline Air Malta was unjustly implicated. I have suffered silently as a Maltese citizen, listened patiently to the allegations but fought with pride to clear Malta’s name.”
So saying, Joe Mifsud reiterates a point he has been making for almost 20 years. But with Megrahi now released on compassionate grounds, and a growing chorus of voices demanding an independent inquiry into the 1988 disaster, Mifsud still has mixed feelings about the entire affair.
“Vindicated? No,” he says when asked for his reaction to the release. “I thought about the relatives and friends of the victims who perished in the Pan Am tragedy. I thought about the time that was wasted and the truth that has not emerged. There are some who might be happy with financial compensation or a guilty verdict. The latter will not take away the pain and anguish caused by the fact that they still do not know the cruel hand behind the planning and the execution of their dear ones...”
Mifsud argues that foreign investigators had abused our friendship and infringed Maltese law. They illegally tapped telephones and even offered money for evidence to strengthen their case.
“I still remember two particular occasions. During proceedings the court was told that the whereabouts of a husband and wife, mentioned as members of a Palestinian terror team responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, were unknown, when I knew that there were living openly with their three young children in Gaza. Everyone was surprised when I interviewed the couple and the story was published on the front page of Scotland on Sunday. When Scottish police first came to Malta in 1989, it was to investigate a Lockerbie connection because clothes originating on the island had been in the bomb suitcase. On their second visit, Palestinian terrorists were suspected. At that time the Palestinian man was living in Malta with his family. His phone was illegally tapped by Scottish police operating in partnership with the American and German investigators. The Maltese authorities protested when the clandestine operation was discovered and the whole investigation was immediately suspended. The investigators were asked to leave Malta and were only allowed to return several weeks later when the Maltese government had been guaranteed that there would be no repeat of illegal investigations.”
The second occasion was when Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the second suspect, was acquitted on 31 January, 2002.
“I visited Fhimah one week after the end of the trial when festivities to celebrate his acquittal were still in full swing in his home area Suq il-Gimgha. I still remember Fhimah’s words: ‘I had tears in my eyes when I bid him farewell, I was very sad and left with a broken heart knowing that my friend Basset was still there. I kept contact with him. As you believed that I was innocent, believe that Basset is innocent too.’”
But what, apart from instinct, originally led Mifsud to doubt the prosecution’s version of events?
“I personally knew Fhimah as he used to live in Mosta, my home town. When his name was mentioned in the investigations I was surprised, and my initial reaction was that I was witnessing a frame up in the making. I was very suspicious regarding Abdul Majid Jiacha, a Libyan defector married to a Maltese. At that time he was being considered as the star witness. I investigated further and obtained classified documents from the USA, claiming that he was in the Witness Protection Programme and he had met US agents more than 10 times before the Lockerbie bombing! So if he knew what was happening he should have supplied all necessary warnings so that the terror act would have been prevented.” (...)
But if the Libya connection is in doubt, what other explanation could there be for a terrorist act claiming 270 lives?
“Secret service sources suggest that the Pan Am disaster was an act of revenge for another air disaster. On 3 July 1988 a United States warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iran Air civilian airliner killing 290 people. As a result of this action and of increased tension in the Middle East it was generally expected that the United States would be the subject of reprisals. There was widespread concern about the threat to United States civilian aircraft at the time.”
As for the insistence on prosecuting Libyan suspects, Mifsud suspects a case of “blame shifting”:
“Pointing fingers to the bad guys of the moment – Libya was known for their support to movements linked to terror, including the IRA, Abu Nidal and others.”
In view of the doubts now cast on the trial proceedings, Mifsud believes the time has come for an independent enquiry.
“During the past years I have spoken to Jim Swire who lost his daughter in this tragedy. He always urged the British government to appoint an inquiry to investigate the case. This should have been done immediately after the tragedy. I agree with his suggestion; better late than never. I still remember the representatives of British victims telling me that questions about the tragedy went unanswered in the trial. They said the trial had not answered the huge number of questions asked over the last years. In my opinion the trial only served to add to this list of questions. A United Nations initiative in the form of a tribunal can act as an independent inquiry...”
What further details could such an inquiry reveal that have so far not come to light?
“The bomb which caused the Pan Am 103 tragedy on Lockerbie did not start its journey from Malta, as the Crown suggested during the trial and during the early stages of the investigations, but from another destination. Where? This is the first question that needs to be answered.
“The bomb device could have been introduced into the working area of Frankfurt by being flown on board any airline, interline tagged or on-line tagged for PA 103. The luggage could have been sent from the Damascus airport in Syria.
“Regarding Heathrow airport, where it is certain that the bomb was loaded onto the Pan Am flight, the three-judge panel itself said that there was also a possibility that an extraneous suitcase could have been introduced by being put onto the conveyor belt outside the interline shed, or introduced into the shed itself or into the container when it was at the built-up area...”
The second unanswered question concerns who mandated the act of terror and who executed the plan. To answer this, Mifsud argues we have to go back to the shortcomings of the initial investigations – among them, the process that led Tony Gauci to identify Megrahi as the person who bought the incriminating clothes from his shop.
“Two points that should have been noted in Tony Gauci’s testimony are: If the person who bought the items from his shop was living at the Holiday Inn Hotel as the prosecution claimed, and this is less than five minutes away from the shop, was it wise for the person who bought the items to walk to the taxi stand which is the same distance from the hotel and in the opposite direction? If Megrahi was the head of the security service and planning a terrorist attack, would it be wise for him to go and buy the clothes himself? This point is very puzzling and confusing. Scottish judges came to a conclusion even without coming to Malta and conducting an on-site inquiry in order to become acquainted with places mentioned in the trial.”
In the final analysis, Mifsud suggests it may have been in the interest of other countries to implicate Malta, albeit indirectly.
“At that time the German authorities were highly criticised for the fact that just some time before the tragedy they had in custody a number of persons involved in terrorist acts, who were very close to the Palestinian faction of Ahmed Jibril, the PFLP-GC, whose base is in Syria. (...)
“Germany was also criticised by security services as how a person suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie case, Hafez Kasem Dalkamoni, was allowed to depart from Germany to Syria without being interrogated about the Lockerbie case.”
“Malta is still portrayed as the place where the terrorists met and executed their plan to kill 270 innocent people. Our national airline Air Malta was unjustly implicated. I have suffered silently as a Maltese citizen, listened patiently to the allegations but fought with pride to clear Malta’s name.”
So saying, Joe Mifsud reiterates a point he has been making for almost 20 years. But with Megrahi now released on compassionate grounds, and a growing chorus of voices demanding an independent inquiry into the 1988 disaster, Mifsud still has mixed feelings about the entire affair.
“Vindicated? No,” he says when asked for his reaction to the release. “I thought about the relatives and friends of the victims who perished in the Pan Am tragedy. I thought about the time that was wasted and the truth that has not emerged. There are some who might be happy with financial compensation or a guilty verdict. The latter will not take away the pain and anguish caused by the fact that they still do not know the cruel hand behind the planning and the execution of their dear ones...”
Mifsud argues that foreign investigators had abused our friendship and infringed Maltese law. They illegally tapped telephones and even offered money for evidence to strengthen their case.
“I still remember two particular occasions. During proceedings the court was told that the whereabouts of a husband and wife, mentioned as members of a Palestinian terror team responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, were unknown, when I knew that there were living openly with their three young children in Gaza. Everyone was surprised when I interviewed the couple and the story was published on the front page of Scotland on Sunday. When Scottish police first came to Malta in 1989, it was to investigate a Lockerbie connection because clothes originating on the island had been in the bomb suitcase. On their second visit, Palestinian terrorists were suspected. At that time the Palestinian man was living in Malta with his family. His phone was illegally tapped by Scottish police operating in partnership with the American and German investigators. The Maltese authorities protested when the clandestine operation was discovered and the whole investigation was immediately suspended. The investigators were asked to leave Malta and were only allowed to return several weeks later when the Maltese government had been guaranteed that there would be no repeat of illegal investigations.”
The second occasion was when Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the second suspect, was acquitted on 31 January, 2002.
“I visited Fhimah one week after the end of the trial when festivities to celebrate his acquittal were still in full swing in his home area Suq il-Gimgha. I still remember Fhimah’s words: ‘I had tears in my eyes when I bid him farewell, I was very sad and left with a broken heart knowing that my friend Basset was still there. I kept contact with him. As you believed that I was innocent, believe that Basset is innocent too.’”
But what, apart from instinct, originally led Mifsud to doubt the prosecution’s version of events?
“I personally knew Fhimah as he used to live in Mosta, my home town. When his name was mentioned in the investigations I was surprised, and my initial reaction was that I was witnessing a frame up in the making. I was very suspicious regarding Abdul Majid Jiacha, a Libyan defector married to a Maltese. At that time he was being considered as the star witness. I investigated further and obtained classified documents from the USA, claiming that he was in the Witness Protection Programme and he had met US agents more than 10 times before the Lockerbie bombing! So if he knew what was happening he should have supplied all necessary warnings so that the terror act would have been prevented.” (...)
But if the Libya connection is in doubt, what other explanation could there be for a terrorist act claiming 270 lives?
“Secret service sources suggest that the Pan Am disaster was an act of revenge for another air disaster. On 3 July 1988 a United States warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iran Air civilian airliner killing 290 people. As a result of this action and of increased tension in the Middle East it was generally expected that the United States would be the subject of reprisals. There was widespread concern about the threat to United States civilian aircraft at the time.”
As for the insistence on prosecuting Libyan suspects, Mifsud suspects a case of “blame shifting”:
“Pointing fingers to the bad guys of the moment – Libya was known for their support to movements linked to terror, including the IRA, Abu Nidal and others.”
In view of the doubts now cast on the trial proceedings, Mifsud believes the time has come for an independent enquiry.
“During the past years I have spoken to Jim Swire who lost his daughter in this tragedy. He always urged the British government to appoint an inquiry to investigate the case. This should have been done immediately after the tragedy. I agree with his suggestion; better late than never. I still remember the representatives of British victims telling me that questions about the tragedy went unanswered in the trial. They said the trial had not answered the huge number of questions asked over the last years. In my opinion the trial only served to add to this list of questions. A United Nations initiative in the form of a tribunal can act as an independent inquiry...”
What further details could such an inquiry reveal that have so far not come to light?
“The bomb which caused the Pan Am 103 tragedy on Lockerbie did not start its journey from Malta, as the Crown suggested during the trial and during the early stages of the investigations, but from another destination. Where? This is the first question that needs to be answered.
“The bomb device could have been introduced into the working area of Frankfurt by being flown on board any airline, interline tagged or on-line tagged for PA 103. The luggage could have been sent from the Damascus airport in Syria.
“Regarding Heathrow airport, where it is certain that the bomb was loaded onto the Pan Am flight, the three-judge panel itself said that there was also a possibility that an extraneous suitcase could have been introduced by being put onto the conveyor belt outside the interline shed, or introduced into the shed itself or into the container when it was at the built-up area...”
The second unanswered question concerns who mandated the act of terror and who executed the plan. To answer this, Mifsud argues we have to go back to the shortcomings of the initial investigations – among them, the process that led Tony Gauci to identify Megrahi as the person who bought the incriminating clothes from his shop.
“Two points that should have been noted in Tony Gauci’s testimony are: If the person who bought the items from his shop was living at the Holiday Inn Hotel as the prosecution claimed, and this is less than five minutes away from the shop, was it wise for the person who bought the items to walk to the taxi stand which is the same distance from the hotel and in the opposite direction? If Megrahi was the head of the security service and planning a terrorist attack, would it be wise for him to go and buy the clothes himself? This point is very puzzling and confusing. Scottish judges came to a conclusion even without coming to Malta and conducting an on-site inquiry in order to become acquainted with places mentioned in the trial.”
In the final analysis, Mifsud suggests it may have been in the interest of other countries to implicate Malta, albeit indirectly.
“At that time the German authorities were highly criticised for the fact that just some time before the tragedy they had in custody a number of persons involved in terrorist acts, who were very close to the Palestinian faction of Ahmed Jibril, the PFLP-GC, whose base is in Syria. (...)
“Germany was also criticised by security services as how a person suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie case, Hafez Kasem Dalkamoni, was allowed to depart from Germany to Syria without being interrogated about the Lockerbie case.”
Pan Am 103 bombing – neither Megrahi nor Malta played any part
[This is the headline over an article in the midweek edition of maltatoday. It reads in part:]
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland should stop to think how fragile the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt is. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the tragedy, deconstructs the Lockerbie case
I entered the Lockerbie trial court convinced that I would see the conviction of those responsible for my daughter’s murder along with 269 others. I emerged at the end convinced that neither the accused, nor Malta or Air Malta, had played any part in the atrocity.
The evidence from Malta was unconvincing: it was not proven that the clothes found among the Lockerbie wreckage from Tony Gauci’s shop were really bought on the day stated. This seemed more likely to have happened on a day when a man called Abu Talb was on your island, but Megrahi definitely was not. We knew from other sources that when the Swedish police had arrested Abu Talb for a different terrorist offence they had found some of the same batch of clothing in his Swedish flat. No explanation for that was available under the prosecution. Talb was an affiliate of the Syria-based PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) terror group, and of Iran.
We also knew that Mr Gauci had been shown a picture of Talb by his brother Paul and positively identified him as the buyer. Only under repeated pressure from the Scottish police did he reluctantly accept that Megrahi’s picture might have been of the buyer.
Mr Gauci should not be blamed for his uncertainty, he did say in court that identifying Megrahi as the buyer might cause trouble in his family; he had confidently told Paul that Talb had been the buyer.
No evidence was led by the prosecution as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security at Luqa. The court commented that this was a major problem for the prosecution. (...)
...after the verdict had been reached, a security guard from Heathrow airport came forward. He had discovered a nocturnal break-in at Heathrow at Terminal 3, adjacent to where the bags for Pan Am 103 were loaded that evening of 21 December 1988. He wanted to know why his evidence had been ignored until after the verdict had been reached. We all need to know that too.
If the Heathrow intruder had brought in one of this type of IED in a suitcase, he could have left it with Iran Air staff, whose facility was close to the area where the PA103 bags were loaded that evening, with a message to put it in a Pan Am baggage container that evening. This was precisely the scenario for which these IEDs were designed.
You may say that to claim that this break-in was the real route by which the IED got aboard PA103 is speculation. You would be right, it is, because the issue could not be discussed during the trial since the break-in was unknown to the court until after the verdict, but it now makes a far simpler and more credible explanation than the prosecution case.
No one will admit why this evidence had lain concealed for 12 years.
The Metropolitan police had interviewed the security guard promptly, and he had entered the break-in details in the Heathrow log as soon as he found them.
It would be almost incredible if Mrs Thatcher’s government did not know, since the Metropolitan police and Heathrow knew what had happened just under their noses at our most prestigious airport. It would be almost equally incredible if the Scottish investigating police did not know.
Two years after the two Libyans had been indicted over Lockerbie, Lady Thatcher published her book ‘The Downing Street Years’. In it she claimed that because of the air raids on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986, which she had co-sponsored with US President Reagan, Gaddafi had been left unable to mount further major terrorist attacks. When I wrote to ask her how she could say this in view of the indictments, she claimed to have “nothing to add to the text”.
I then wrote to the Lord Advocate of Scotland to ask whether Scotland’s Crown Office had known about the break-in during the 12 years of concealment, they replied that the Crown Office had not known. (...)
Britain and the US whose intelligence services/investigators were working closely together on this dreadful case need to explain this issue. We need a fully empowered inquiry. We have been seeking that for 20 years.
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland from America should stop to think how fragile is the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt. It is sad to think that President Obama’s new administration has not yet checked out the facts before joining in.
[A long and detailed article on the case, and particularly on the role of shopkeeper Tony Gauci, by Matthew Vella in the same newspaper can be read here.]
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland should stop to think how fragile the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt is. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the tragedy, deconstructs the Lockerbie case
I entered the Lockerbie trial court convinced that I would see the conviction of those responsible for my daughter’s murder along with 269 others. I emerged at the end convinced that neither the accused, nor Malta or Air Malta, had played any part in the atrocity.
The evidence from Malta was unconvincing: it was not proven that the clothes found among the Lockerbie wreckage from Tony Gauci’s shop were really bought on the day stated. This seemed more likely to have happened on a day when a man called Abu Talb was on your island, but Megrahi definitely was not. We knew from other sources that when the Swedish police had arrested Abu Talb for a different terrorist offence they had found some of the same batch of clothing in his Swedish flat. No explanation for that was available under the prosecution. Talb was an affiliate of the Syria-based PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) terror group, and of Iran.
We also knew that Mr Gauci had been shown a picture of Talb by his brother Paul and positively identified him as the buyer. Only under repeated pressure from the Scottish police did he reluctantly accept that Megrahi’s picture might have been of the buyer.
Mr Gauci should not be blamed for his uncertainty, he did say in court that identifying Megrahi as the buyer might cause trouble in his family; he had confidently told Paul that Talb had been the buyer.
No evidence was led by the prosecution as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security at Luqa. The court commented that this was a major problem for the prosecution. (...)
...after the verdict had been reached, a security guard from Heathrow airport came forward. He had discovered a nocturnal break-in at Heathrow at Terminal 3, adjacent to where the bags for Pan Am 103 were loaded that evening of 21 December 1988. He wanted to know why his evidence had been ignored until after the verdict had been reached. We all need to know that too.
If the Heathrow intruder had brought in one of this type of IED in a suitcase, he could have left it with Iran Air staff, whose facility was close to the area where the PA103 bags were loaded that evening, with a message to put it in a Pan Am baggage container that evening. This was precisely the scenario for which these IEDs were designed.
You may say that to claim that this break-in was the real route by which the IED got aboard PA103 is speculation. You would be right, it is, because the issue could not be discussed during the trial since the break-in was unknown to the court until after the verdict, but it now makes a far simpler and more credible explanation than the prosecution case.
No one will admit why this evidence had lain concealed for 12 years.
The Metropolitan police had interviewed the security guard promptly, and he had entered the break-in details in the Heathrow log as soon as he found them.
It would be almost incredible if Mrs Thatcher’s government did not know, since the Metropolitan police and Heathrow knew what had happened just under their noses at our most prestigious airport. It would be almost equally incredible if the Scottish investigating police did not know.
Two years after the two Libyans had been indicted over Lockerbie, Lady Thatcher published her book ‘The Downing Street Years’. In it she claimed that because of the air raids on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986, which she had co-sponsored with US President Reagan, Gaddafi had been left unable to mount further major terrorist attacks. When I wrote to ask her how she could say this in view of the indictments, she claimed to have “nothing to add to the text”.
I then wrote to the Lord Advocate of Scotland to ask whether Scotland’s Crown Office had known about the break-in during the 12 years of concealment, they replied that the Crown Office had not known. (...)
Britain and the US whose intelligence services/investigators were working closely together on this dreadful case need to explain this issue. We need a fully empowered inquiry. We have been seeking that for 20 years.
Those who now make such vitriolic attacks on Scotland from America should stop to think how fragile is the evidence for Megrahi’s guilt. It is sad to think that President Obama’s new administration has not yet checked out the facts before joining in.
[A long and detailed article on the case, and particularly on the role of shopkeeper Tony Gauci, by Matthew Vella in the same newspaper can be read here.]
"Honest re-evaluation" required as Swire calls for swift action to secure Megrahi case papers
[This is the headline over an article posted this morning on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The letter from Dr Jim Swire to which it refers can be read here. The article reads as follows:]
Dr Jim Swire, in a letter sent exclusively to The Firm, has called for the swift securing of case papers relating to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's second appeal, and for an "honest re-evaluation" of the circumstances of the incident over Lockerbie in 1988.
Swire also criticises Margaret Thatcher's Government for failing to ensure the protection of Pan Am Flight 103, and also blamed subsequent Governments for failing to convene an inquiry into the events.
"We are all in the dock now, and only by honest re-evaluation of how we failed before during and after the disaster, can we retrieve anything of value from the wreckage of how we have dealt with it," he says.
"Although our Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1993 was crippled by the concealment from it of the evidence demonstrating a singularly apposite break-in at Heathrow, just as the Zeist trial court was, the FAI did record that Lockerbie was a preventable disaster. Yet no UK Prime Minister has agreed in 20 years to our call for a full inquiry.
"The failure of prevention was the direct reponsibility of the Thatcher government of the day, very possibly through the woefully inadequate security at Heathrow perimeter, rather than baggage transfer arrangements there, neither aspect had made any useful response to the many known and timely warnings received by the UK government."
Swire, who has frequently expressed his frustration and distrust of the conduct of the Crown Office, also called on Holyrood to act on the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which found that a miscarriage of justice may have occured.
"The Scottish government can now draw on the full findings of our SCCRC. The real possibility they raised that there might have been a miscarriage of justice must be resolved at once," he said.
"Not at the glacial pace imposed upon the early stages of Megrahi's second appeal largely by the Crown Office's delaying tactics, but swiftly."
Dr Jim Swire, in a letter sent exclusively to The Firm, has called for the swift securing of case papers relating to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's second appeal, and for an "honest re-evaluation" of the circumstances of the incident over Lockerbie in 1988.
Swire also criticises Margaret Thatcher's Government for failing to ensure the protection of Pan Am Flight 103, and also blamed subsequent Governments for failing to convene an inquiry into the events.
"We are all in the dock now, and only by honest re-evaluation of how we failed before during and after the disaster, can we retrieve anything of value from the wreckage of how we have dealt with it," he says.
"Although our Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1993 was crippled by the concealment from it of the evidence demonstrating a singularly apposite break-in at Heathrow, just as the Zeist trial court was, the FAI did record that Lockerbie was a preventable disaster. Yet no UK Prime Minister has agreed in 20 years to our call for a full inquiry.
"The failure of prevention was the direct reponsibility of the Thatcher government of the day, very possibly through the woefully inadequate security at Heathrow perimeter, rather than baggage transfer arrangements there, neither aspect had made any useful response to the many known and timely warnings received by the UK government."
Swire, who has frequently expressed his frustration and distrust of the conduct of the Crown Office, also called on Holyrood to act on the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which found that a miscarriage of justice may have occured.
"The Scottish government can now draw on the full findings of our SCCRC. The real possibility they raised that there might have been a miscarriage of justice must be resolved at once," he said.
"Not at the glacial pace imposed upon the early stages of Megrahi's second appeal largely by the Crown Office's delaying tactics, but swiftly."
MacAskill prison visit absurd, says Lord Fraser
One of Scotland’s most respected legal figures has bitterly attacked Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, for his decision to visit the convicted Lockerbie bomber in prison.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who as Lord Advocate was responsible for drawing up the indictment in 1991 against Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, described Mr MacAskill’s decision to go to Greenock Prison on August 5 as “absurd”.
Lord Fraser, who also led the public inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building cost scandal, said in a television interview that instead of going to see al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill would have done better to have gone to the United States to explain his decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.
He added: “The idea that he [Mr MacAskill] goes to Greenock Prison and he doesn’t get on a plane and go to Washington and explain his position to those who are really important ... just seems to me to be quite extraordinary ... I just think that was absurd.”
Lord Fraser, in the interview, made clear that he supported the decision to release al-Megrahi. His criticism was directed at the way the affair had been handled.
Mr MacAskill’s defence of his prison visit is that he was “duty bound” to go because of a commitment given by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Minister. Under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. “Mr Al-Megrahi chose to do so in person,” Mr MacAskill said.
Mr Straw has denied this, saying that he only recommended that a prisoner make representations in writing.
[The above is the text of an article in today's edition of The Times.
The description of Peter Fraser as "one of Scotland’s most respected legal figures" will be causing unbridled mirth in the Scottish legal profession. He may be a respected figure, but it certainly is not for his eminence as a lawyer.
The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.
Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who as Lord Advocate was responsible for drawing up the indictment in 1991 against Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, described Mr MacAskill’s decision to go to Greenock Prison on August 5 as “absurd”.
Lord Fraser, who also led the public inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building cost scandal, said in a television interview that instead of going to see al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill would have done better to have gone to the United States to explain his decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.
He added: “The idea that he [Mr MacAskill] goes to Greenock Prison and he doesn’t get on a plane and go to Washington and explain his position to those who are really important ... just seems to me to be quite extraordinary ... I just think that was absurd.”
Lord Fraser, in the interview, made clear that he supported the decision to release al-Megrahi. His criticism was directed at the way the affair had been handled.
Mr MacAskill’s defence of his prison visit is that he was “duty bound” to go because of a commitment given by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Minister. Under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. “Mr Al-Megrahi chose to do so in person,” Mr MacAskill said.
Mr Straw has denied this, saying that he only recommended that a prisoner make representations in writing.
[The above is the text of an article in today's edition of The Times.
The description of Peter Fraser as "one of Scotland’s most respected legal figures" will be causing unbridled mirth in the Scottish legal profession. He may be a respected figure, but it certainly is not for his eminence as a lawyer.
The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.
Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.]
Tales of torture prove US has no right to moral leadership
[This is the headline over an article by Ian Bell in today's edition of The Herald. The following are the first four and the last two paragraphs.]
Since this seems to be the week for offending American opinion, let's cram Stalin and the CIA into the same sentence. It's not too much of a stretch. History relates, in gory detail, that the NKVD and sundry other forerunners of the KGB routinely achieved their ends by threatening the families of prisoners. It concentrated minds wonderfully.
The important difference is, of course, that Stalin's psychopaths as often as not carried out their promises to murder children and rape women. They did not serve freedom's cause, either. Still, the point is that there is nothing new in the dark, repulsive world of torture. And its practitioners always claim a higher purpose.
How should we respond, then, to the long-suppressed internal CIA report into the activities of certain of its agents in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks? Cancel a few holidays? Boycott bourbon? Remind ourselves that there is mounting evidence that Britain, too, has been in receipt of intelligence extracted illegally?
Eric Holder, the US attorney- general, has elected to publish the report and has appointed John Durham, an experienced federal prosecutor, to investigate a dozen or so cases. That's progress, of sorts. It will dismay the White House, inflame the Republican right and partly satisfy the American Civil Liberties Union. Whether it will redeem America's sense of rectitude is another matter. (...)
A country that believes it can treat alleged terrorists in any way it sees fit, and then fails to deal with the truth of its actions, is a poor candidate in the moral leadership stakes. Its President's own claims to leadership, especially when he chooses to lecture others, then lose all credibility.
So remind me: what was it that was so especially heinous about the recent actions of Scotland's government?
Since this seems to be the week for offending American opinion, let's cram Stalin and the CIA into the same sentence. It's not too much of a stretch. History relates, in gory detail, that the NKVD and sundry other forerunners of the KGB routinely achieved their ends by threatening the families of prisoners. It concentrated minds wonderfully.
The important difference is, of course, that Stalin's psychopaths as often as not carried out their promises to murder children and rape women. They did not serve freedom's cause, either. Still, the point is that there is nothing new in the dark, repulsive world of torture. And its practitioners always claim a higher purpose.
How should we respond, then, to the long-suppressed internal CIA report into the activities of certain of its agents in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks? Cancel a few holidays? Boycott bourbon? Remind ourselves that there is mounting evidence that Britain, too, has been in receipt of intelligence extracted illegally?
Eric Holder, the US attorney- general, has elected to publish the report and has appointed John Durham, an experienced federal prosecutor, to investigate a dozen or so cases. That's progress, of sorts. It will dismay the White House, inflame the Republican right and partly satisfy the American Civil Liberties Union. Whether it will redeem America's sense of rectitude is another matter. (...)
A country that believes it can treat alleged terrorists in any way it sees fit, and then fails to deal with the truth of its actions, is a poor candidate in the moral leadership stakes. Its President's own claims to leadership, especially when he chooses to lecture others, then lose all credibility.
So remind me: what was it that was so especially heinous about the recent actions of Scotland's government?
Repatriation decision to be scrutinised
A split has emerged among senior Labour figures after John Prescott, the party's former Deputy Prime Minister, backed Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's releasing of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. (...)
Mr Prescott said: "If the man is dying, if compassion is part, as it is, of the Scottish administration and the medical authorities then get proof to that effect, then it's a decision for the legal authority. Scotland has always had a great deal of independence of its legal authority, going back many years, so we have to respect that decision."
Last night, the political row over the Lockerbie decision escalated when Ben Wallace, Shadow Scottish Minister, called on the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee to launch an inquiry into "the role played by the UK Government".
In a letter to Mohammad Sarwar, the committee chairman, Mr Wallace wrote that it was important "to establish if the UK Government made commitments on behalf of the Scottish Government without prior consent or without any constitutional legitimacy and whether ministers did so in exchange for trade or other concessions from Libya".
The Herald can reveal MPs are set to examine the effects of the Lockerbie decision on UK-US relations as part of a formal parliamentary inquiry.In the autumn, the Commons' influential Foreign Affairs Committee will launch an inquiry into the so-called Special Relationship, calling expert witnesses and involving a trip to Washington and the United Nations in New York to interview key US players.
Mike Gapes, the committee chairman, said that he alone could not determine whether the Lockerbie decision would form part of the inquiry but admitted it was likely to. He said: "We will be looking at America and US-UK relations will be an important part of that and involve all the potential areas of difficulty. We never thought of this at the time we decided on the inquiry."
The intervention by Mr Prescott is an embarrassment for Mr Gray and is in contrast to the reluctance of Gordon Brown to offer an opinion on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, described the comments as "very welcome" saying they underlined "the naked opportunism of Iain Gray and Labour in the Scottish Parliament". (...)
LibDem leader Tavish Scott has called for Holyrood's Justice Committee to examine Megrahi's release.
[From a report in today's edition of The Herald.]
Mr Prescott said: "If the man is dying, if compassion is part, as it is, of the Scottish administration and the medical authorities then get proof to that effect, then it's a decision for the legal authority. Scotland has always had a great deal of independence of its legal authority, going back many years, so we have to respect that decision."
Last night, the political row over the Lockerbie decision escalated when Ben Wallace, Shadow Scottish Minister, called on the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee to launch an inquiry into "the role played by the UK Government".
In a letter to Mohammad Sarwar, the committee chairman, Mr Wallace wrote that it was important "to establish if the UK Government made commitments on behalf of the Scottish Government without prior consent or without any constitutional legitimacy and whether ministers did so in exchange for trade or other concessions from Libya".
The Herald can reveal MPs are set to examine the effects of the Lockerbie decision on UK-US relations as part of a formal parliamentary inquiry.In the autumn, the Commons' influential Foreign Affairs Committee will launch an inquiry into the so-called Special Relationship, calling expert witnesses and involving a trip to Washington and the United Nations in New York to interview key US players.
Mike Gapes, the committee chairman, said that he alone could not determine whether the Lockerbie decision would form part of the inquiry but admitted it was likely to. He said: "We will be looking at America and US-UK relations will be an important part of that and involve all the potential areas of difficulty. We never thought of this at the time we decided on the inquiry."
The intervention by Mr Prescott is an embarrassment for Mr Gray and is in contrast to the reluctance of Gordon Brown to offer an opinion on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, described the comments as "very welcome" saying they underlined "the naked opportunism of Iain Gray and Labour in the Scottish Parliament". (...)
LibDem leader Tavish Scott has called for Holyrood's Justice Committee to examine Megrahi's release.
[From a report in today's edition of The Herald.]
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Jack Straw is first British minister to question Lockerbie bomber’s release
Jack Straw became the first British minister to raise questions about the handling of the release of the Lockerbie bomber yesterday.
The Justice Secretary suggested that he would not have visited Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in jail, in contrast to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, who saw him shortly before announcing his decision to release him on compassionate grounds.
Mr Straw said: “That was his decision. If you are asking me if I have ever visited a prisoner in jail who has applied for compassionate release, the answer to that is no.”
He reiterated that last Thursday’s decision to release al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was a matter for the Scottish government. Britain’s relationship with Libya has come under scrutiny amid rumours of trade deals being attached to the prisoner’s fate. Three ministers have made trips to Libya in the past 12 months. (...)
John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday became the first senior Labour figure to back the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.
He told Sky News: “If the man is dying, if compassion is passed as it is in the Scottish administration, and the medical authorities then gave proof to that effect as they did, then it’s a decision for their legal authority.”
[The above is from an article in the edition of The Times for 27 August.
It would have been open to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, to stipulate that the only representations from interested persons that he would consider in making his decision on repatriation would be representations in writing. But once he had decided to allow representations to be made in face-to-face meetings or by video link, he could not properly deny this facility to the prisoner himself. Had he done so, any decision reached could have been legally challenged on the ground of procedural unfairness. If Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, does not understand this, he is in the wrong job.]
The Justice Secretary suggested that he would not have visited Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in jail, in contrast to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, who saw him shortly before announcing his decision to release him on compassionate grounds.
Mr Straw said: “That was his decision. If you are asking me if I have ever visited a prisoner in jail who has applied for compassionate release, the answer to that is no.”
He reiterated that last Thursday’s decision to release al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was a matter for the Scottish government. Britain’s relationship with Libya has come under scrutiny amid rumours of trade deals being attached to the prisoner’s fate. Three ministers have made trips to Libya in the past 12 months. (...)
John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday became the first senior Labour figure to back the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.
He told Sky News: “If the man is dying, if compassion is passed as it is in the Scottish administration, and the medical authorities then gave proof to that effect as they did, then it’s a decision for their legal authority.”
[The above is from an article in the edition of The Times for 27 August.
It would have been open to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, to stipulate that the only representations from interested persons that he would consider in making his decision on repatriation would be representations in writing. But once he had decided to allow representations to be made in face-to-face meetings or by video link, he could not properly deny this facility to the prisoner himself. Had he done so, any decision reached could have been legally challenged on the ground of procedural unfairness. If Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, does not understand this, he is in the wrong job.]
A view from The New Yorker
[The following is an article by Andrew Solomon on the website of The New Yorker.]
The compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, has been roundly condemned by both the US government and the American media. President Obama called the release “a mistake,” and Hillary Clinton, who had already said it would be “absolutely wrong” to free him, was “deeply disappointed.” There are two primary questions here. The first is whether Megrahi, and, indeed, Qaddafi’s regime in general, was responsible for the bombings, a question I raised in my 2006 examination of the Libyan political system for this magazine. The second is whether dying people, no matter how gross their sins, deserve compassion, and should be allowed to die at home. But the real issue lies in the conjunction of these two problems. Does the possibility that someone has been wrongly imprisoned increase the imperative to offer compassionate release?
The fact that Megrahi was convicted on thin evidence has been noted by many who were close to the original trial and the hastily assembled first appeal. Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial, described it as “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for a hundred years.” Professor Hans Köchler, appointed by Kofi Annan to observe the trial for the UN, called the second court’s decision a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” One of the primary witnesses—Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified Megrahi as having bought the clothes that investigators believed were wrapped around the bomb—has been largely discredited, and the assertion that the Swiss Mebo MST-13 timer used to detonate the bomb had been sold only to the Libyans has proved false. The original CIA inquiries focussed on Tehran, where there had been calls for vengeance after a US Navy cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger plane. Robert Baer, who worked on the case for the CIA, has said that Iran was responsible, and “60 Minutes” put forward, in 2000, the possibility that Tehran hired a Syria-based Palestinian organization to stage the attack. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review, which examined all this material, determined there was evidence for a second appeal, and that appeal was underway when doctors said Megrahi had only three months to live. Conspiracy theories abound: that the Libyans were fingered in the first place to avoid a confrontation with Iran at a delicate time; that this political jig would have become broadly known if Megrahi hadn’t dropped the appeal in exchange for compassionate release; that Scotland released Megrahi in order to gain access to Libyan oil; and many others too baroque to rehearse here. Any of these may be true, but they would take many years to unfurl. While the conviction of Megrahi may prove to be right, no one could describe it as anywhere near watertight, and reasonable doubt does remain a standard for legal innocence.
Imprisonment serves three functions. It removes people who might commit further crimes from a context in which they can commit them. There was no need to keep Megrahi behind bars with this objective. It sends a signal to others tempted to commit similar crimes that there is a cost. Megrahi’s release on his deathbed will not encourage terrorists; indeed, shows of humane treatment of this kind dampen Islamic anti-Americanism. Finally, it allows those who were injured in a crime to feel the satisfactions of revenge—the retribution principle. This is the ugliest of the three reasons, and indulging it is a problematical standard for compassion. It’s not that it’s wrong, per se, but that it has limits, and the dying days of a man who is possibly innocent of this particular crime seem too high a price to pay for it.
Megrahi has received a hero’s welcome in Libya because Libyans feel that they have been unfairly scapegoated by the West, and that Megrahi has been a martyr to international prejudice against them. They are angry that the US appears not to have fulfilled what they understood as promises of complete diplomatic recognition following Qaddafi’s payment of damages to the Lockerbie families and his renunciation of a nuclear program. They believed in Megrahi’s innocence all along and now feel vindicated, and are thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of American outrage, which is to them as jingoistic as we perceive their jubilation to be. The posture of the President and the Secretary of State is designed to cater to the tough-on-terrorists approach required of all American politicians, and to play to those Lockerbie families who reconciled themselves to tragedy only by believing that the guilty were caught and punished. In the U.S., the voices of the vengeful have been loudest. But, in fact, many Lockerbie families believe that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Martin Cadman, who lost a son in the disaster, said the trial was “a farce” and that the release of Megrahi was “just righting a wrong.” Jim Swire, who lost a daughter, said, “As time goes by it will become clear that he had nothing to do with it.” The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, now under attack, was courageous in allowing the confusing evidence to tilt in favor of letting a sick man go home.
The compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, has been roundly condemned by both the US government and the American media. President Obama called the release “a mistake,” and Hillary Clinton, who had already said it would be “absolutely wrong” to free him, was “deeply disappointed.” There are two primary questions here. The first is whether Megrahi, and, indeed, Qaddafi’s regime in general, was responsible for the bombings, a question I raised in my 2006 examination of the Libyan political system for this magazine. The second is whether dying people, no matter how gross their sins, deserve compassion, and should be allowed to die at home. But the real issue lies in the conjunction of these two problems. Does the possibility that someone has been wrongly imprisoned increase the imperative to offer compassionate release?
The fact that Megrahi was convicted on thin evidence has been noted by many who were close to the original trial and the hastily assembled first appeal. Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial, described it as “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for a hundred years.” Professor Hans Köchler, appointed by Kofi Annan to observe the trial for the UN, called the second court’s decision a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” One of the primary witnesses—Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified Megrahi as having bought the clothes that investigators believed were wrapped around the bomb—has been largely discredited, and the assertion that the Swiss Mebo MST-13 timer used to detonate the bomb had been sold only to the Libyans has proved false. The original CIA inquiries focussed on Tehran, where there had been calls for vengeance after a US Navy cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger plane. Robert Baer, who worked on the case for the CIA, has said that Iran was responsible, and “60 Minutes” put forward, in 2000, the possibility that Tehran hired a Syria-based Palestinian organization to stage the attack. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review, which examined all this material, determined there was evidence for a second appeal, and that appeal was underway when doctors said Megrahi had only three months to live. Conspiracy theories abound: that the Libyans were fingered in the first place to avoid a confrontation with Iran at a delicate time; that this political jig would have become broadly known if Megrahi hadn’t dropped the appeal in exchange for compassionate release; that Scotland released Megrahi in order to gain access to Libyan oil; and many others too baroque to rehearse here. Any of these may be true, but they would take many years to unfurl. While the conviction of Megrahi may prove to be right, no one could describe it as anywhere near watertight, and reasonable doubt does remain a standard for legal innocence.
Imprisonment serves three functions. It removes people who might commit further crimes from a context in which they can commit them. There was no need to keep Megrahi behind bars with this objective. It sends a signal to others tempted to commit similar crimes that there is a cost. Megrahi’s release on his deathbed will not encourage terrorists; indeed, shows of humane treatment of this kind dampen Islamic anti-Americanism. Finally, it allows those who were injured in a crime to feel the satisfactions of revenge—the retribution principle. This is the ugliest of the three reasons, and indulging it is a problematical standard for compassion. It’s not that it’s wrong, per se, but that it has limits, and the dying days of a man who is possibly innocent of this particular crime seem too high a price to pay for it.
Megrahi has received a hero’s welcome in Libya because Libyans feel that they have been unfairly scapegoated by the West, and that Megrahi has been a martyr to international prejudice against them. They are angry that the US appears not to have fulfilled what they understood as promises of complete diplomatic recognition following Qaddafi’s payment of damages to the Lockerbie families and his renunciation of a nuclear program. They believed in Megrahi’s innocence all along and now feel vindicated, and are thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of American outrage, which is to them as jingoistic as we perceive their jubilation to be. The posture of the President and the Secretary of State is designed to cater to the tough-on-terrorists approach required of all American politicians, and to play to those Lockerbie families who reconciled themselves to tragedy only by believing that the guilty were caught and punished. In the U.S., the voices of the vengeful have been loudest. But, in fact, many Lockerbie families believe that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Martin Cadman, who lost a son in the disaster, said the trial was “a farce” and that the release of Megrahi was “just righting a wrong.” Jim Swire, who lost a daughter, said, “As time goes by it will become clear that he had nothing to do with it.” The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, now under attack, was courageous in allowing the confusing evidence to tilt in favor of letting a sick man go home.
Where right is right
[The following sentences are from an op-ed by Garrison Keillor in today's edition of The New York Times.]
Nobody is so ready to embrace martyrdom as my fellow liberals, and here they are, seven months after Mr. Obama took the oath, crying out, “Where did it go, the glory and the dream?” Get a grip. Solid majorities in the House and Senate and yet a few puffs of smoke from the other side and Democrats are full of consternation. If they back out on this young president, and if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us?
Here in London, people are amused at the wild paranoid fantasies of the right. I don’t care about that, I hold weak-kneed Democrats responsible, and if they get spooked by a few hecklers, then it’s time to find replacements.
Standing in stark contrast was the simple humane decision of the Scottish government to release the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, a man near death from prostate cancer, who was convicted in 2001 on the basis of thin circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a paid witness for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. A shaky conviction of a man for a crime that had to have involved many others who, it would seem, Britain and the U.S. have little interest in finding, what with Libyan oil in the balance. Mr. al-Megrahi had “patsy” written all over him. The Scots did the right thing. And caused a public uproar, and so what? Right is right.
Nobody is so ready to embrace martyrdom as my fellow liberals, and here they are, seven months after Mr. Obama took the oath, crying out, “Where did it go, the glory and the dream?” Get a grip. Solid majorities in the House and Senate and yet a few puffs of smoke from the other side and Democrats are full of consternation. If they back out on this young president, and if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us?
Here in London, people are amused at the wild paranoid fantasies of the right. I don’t care about that, I hold weak-kneed Democrats responsible, and if they get spooked by a few hecklers, then it’s time to find replacements.
Standing in stark contrast was the simple humane decision of the Scottish government to release the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, a man near death from prostate cancer, who was convicted in 2001 on the basis of thin circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a paid witness for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. A shaky conviction of a man for a crime that had to have involved many others who, it would seem, Britain and the U.S. have little interest in finding, what with Libyan oil in the balance. Mr. al-Megrahi had “patsy” written all over him. The Scots did the right thing. And caused a public uproar, and so what? Right is right.
Solicitor excoriates cowardly MSPs
[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.
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)