After an initial outcry, it looks like most Scots agree with MacAskill’s decision …
By most accounts, the SNP administration should now be in its death throes. "Election threat over Lockerbie scandal" screamed a tabloid paper headline on Monday, "Salmond facing Holyrood revolt as backlash spreads". "Will the bomber topple Salmond?" queried another. (…)
The Labour opposition in Holyrood lost no time with a denunciation of both the decision to release and the actions of the justice secretary leading up to it. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats joined in with attacks of their own. (…)
More disconcerting was the initial reaction within Scotland. This, I felt, quite misread the public mood, both on the decision and the terms in which the justice secretary explained it. I certainly felt that, far from being repelled, the ethical setting struck a deep chord with the feelings of many Scots. (…)
At The Scotsman, our readers’ letters swung decisively through the week in favour of MacAskill’s decision to release, while our online poll went from a very narrow majority opposing his decision to 57 per cent in favour by yesterday afternoon. (…)
Having seen so many adopt the position of instantaneous attack and how opinion has moved from that initial reaction, I cannot but agree with that savvy observer, the writer Kenneth Roy, who said: “There is a growing sense that the media and the political opposition may have misjudged the mood and spirit of a considerable number of thinking Scots.” MacAskill articulated, if clumsily, a sense of ethics and even idealism. When the row dies down, we owe it to ourselves to remember this.
[The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Scotsman by Bill Jamieson, the newspaper’s Executive Editor. The Scotsman is fiercely opposed to the Scottish National Party government and all its works, which makes this article all the more significant and a pretty clear indication of the way the Scottish political wind is now blowing on the repatriation issue.
Opinion polls show varying results. A telephone poll commissioned by BBC News found that 60 per cent disapproved and 32 per cent approved of the decision.
A MORI poll for Reuters news agency found that 47 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the decision, while 40 per cent agreed or strongly agreed.]
Friday, 28 August 2009
Plumbing the depths
There is a distasteful and unseemly wrangle going on over whether Abdelbaset Megrahi has only three months to live and over the number and qualifications of the doctors who formed the view, and advised the cabinet Secretary for Justice, that this was the case. This downmarket tabloid bandwagon has been jumped on by a series of Scottish Labour and Tory politicians.
The Daily Express’s coverage of the issue can be read here and the Daily Mail’s here.
The Times today has a report which contains the following paragraphs:
‘It emerged that the prognosis that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had a life expectancy of only three months or less was supported by an unnamed doctor who had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer. The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scotttish Prison Service.
‘The three-month time limit is important because Scottish Prison Service guidance says that compassionate release from prison “may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period”.
‘Dr Fraser’s report says: “Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist ‘would be willing to say’.”
‘Dr Fraser’s report, however, also contains a reference to the “opinion” of an unnamed doctor — thought to be a GP — who, says that the report, “dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer”.
‘It adds: “Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.”
‘Last night political opponents at Holyrood were claiming that the conclusion reached by Dr Fraser was based on what the unnamed GP had said and had not taken into sufficient account the more guarded views of the prostate cancer specialists. (…)
‘However, the Scottish government has dismissed the claims. A spokesman said that Dr Fraser had arrived at the prognosis based on information provided by all the various medical experts who assessed that Mr al-Megrahi’s condition had declined. He added that the GP was “in close consultation with a highly experienced NHS consultant oncologist of many years’ experience. This view is based upon an analysis of all of the views expressed and the consensus of the medical experts that the condition of Mr al-Megrahi was now entering its final stages.”’
The position is quite simply this. Specialist oncologists simply are not prepared to tell a patient, or anyone else who may want to know, how long that person has to live. They regard their function as being to provide or advise on the best care and treatment for the patient for however long or short a period he may have left to him. This means that if a patient, or anyone else with a need to know, insists on being provided with a time scale, this must be provided, not by the cancer specialists, but by the ordinary general practitioner attending the patient who must do his best, with his overall knowledge of the patient and the progess of the disease, to translate the specialists’ views into weeks or months.
That is precisely what has happened in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. The newspapers and politicians who have sought to read something sinister and underhand into the medical aspects of Kenny MacAskill’s decision should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly that vocal Labour MSP who is himself a medical practitioner.
The Daily Express’s coverage of the issue can be read here and the Daily Mail’s here.
The Times today has a report which contains the following paragraphs:
‘It emerged that the prognosis that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had a life expectancy of only three months or less was supported by an unnamed doctor who had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer. The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scotttish Prison Service.
‘The three-month time limit is important because Scottish Prison Service guidance says that compassionate release from prison “may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period”.
‘Dr Fraser’s report says: “Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist ‘would be willing to say’.”
‘Dr Fraser’s report, however, also contains a reference to the “opinion” of an unnamed doctor — thought to be a GP — who, says that the report, “dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer”.
‘It adds: “Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.”
‘Last night political opponents at Holyrood were claiming that the conclusion reached by Dr Fraser was based on what the unnamed GP had said and had not taken into sufficient account the more guarded views of the prostate cancer specialists. (…)
‘However, the Scottish government has dismissed the claims. A spokesman said that Dr Fraser had arrived at the prognosis based on information provided by all the various medical experts who assessed that Mr al-Megrahi’s condition had declined. He added that the GP was “in close consultation with a highly experienced NHS consultant oncologist of many years’ experience. This view is based upon an analysis of all of the views expressed and the consensus of the medical experts that the condition of Mr al-Megrahi was now entering its final stages.”’
The position is quite simply this. Specialist oncologists simply are not prepared to tell a patient, or anyone else who may want to know, how long that person has to live. They regard their function as being to provide or advise on the best care and treatment for the patient for however long or short a period he may have left to him. This means that if a patient, or anyone else with a need to know, insists on being provided with a time scale, this must be provided, not by the cancer specialists, but by the ordinary general practitioner attending the patient who must do his best, with his overall knowledge of the patient and the progess of the disease, to translate the specialists’ views into weeks or months.
That is precisely what has happened in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. The newspapers and politicians who have sought to read something sinister and underhand into the medical aspects of Kenny MacAskill’s decision should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly that vocal Labour MSP who is himself a medical practitioner.
Give up political point-scoring over Megrahi and deal with the real issue
[The following are excerpts from letters published in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
On the morning of the emergency Holyrood session on Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Lesley Riddoch (Opinion, 24 August) hoped our MSPs would have a grown-up debate. She will have been disappointed, but not surprised, since it was entirely predictable. (...)
There is widespread support for Mr MacAskill's decision, much of it perhaps coloured by the belief that Mr Megrahi suffered a miscarriage of justice. It would be more useful if our MSPs addressed this issue, rather than scoring party-political points.
Patrick Harvie of the Greens recognised the elephant in the room when he asked the Scottish Government and the UK government to publish "all the information that is relevant ... to (Mr Megrahi's] original conviction, so that everyone – Scots, Americans, Libyans and the world – will be able finally to answer the serious and troubling outstanding questions in this case".
Unfortunately, the indecent haste with which the UK government issued a public interest immunity certificate to ensure such papers will not see the light of day suggests there is, indeed, much to be hidden from our ken.
Alan R Irons, Glasgow
Perhaps before any vote is taken in the Scottish Parliament on Mr MacAskill's courageous decision, which he carefully explained, giving the reasons for it, these MSPs should seek the opinions of the constituents they are representing, not speaking for, because it seems their main objective is to score political points and has little to do with why they were elected.
Unfortunately, there seem to be very few politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in, and if a considerable number vote against the decision because they must follow the party line, it will be a sad day for Scotland and the Scottish people that we are being represented by people so lacking in compassion. This will be a reason for us to feel ashamed.
Mary Morrison, Udny
I refer to David Maddox's interest in whether or not Mr al-Megrahi will die within three months (your report, 26 August) and whether or not the advice Kenny MacAskill received on this matter justified the release on licence.
To speculate on the minor detail of the precise date of al-Megrahi's demise in an attempt to attack Mr MacAskill's decision is squalid and distasteful, and both Mr Maddox and the Labour MSP Richard Simpson – particularly the latter, as a physician – should be ashamed of themselves.
It is also irrelevant: despite Mr Maddox's repeated declaration, the "three month" assessment is a rule of thumb, not a legal requirement.
John Galloway, Drumbuie
It is disappointing to read letters from US correspondents who have decided to cancel trips to Scotland or boycott Scottish products because of the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi.
Although I often disagree with the policies of the US, and the French, government, I visit these countries regularly, because I go to enjoy the countries and the company of friends I have made there over the years, who, incidentally, often complain about their leaders, also.
I believe the decision was right. In showing mercy to a dying man, Kenny MacAskill may have made a small step in healing the rift between the West and the Islamic world. Most of your letters warn of the economic consequences to Scotland of offending the US; I ask that people consider the bigger picture and don't compare dollars with humanitarian values.
Walter J Allan, Edinburgh
On the morning of the emergency Holyrood session on Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Lesley Riddoch (Opinion, 24 August) hoped our MSPs would have a grown-up debate. She will have been disappointed, but not surprised, since it was entirely predictable. (...)
There is widespread support for Mr MacAskill's decision, much of it perhaps coloured by the belief that Mr Megrahi suffered a miscarriage of justice. It would be more useful if our MSPs addressed this issue, rather than scoring party-political points.
Patrick Harvie of the Greens recognised the elephant in the room when he asked the Scottish Government and the UK government to publish "all the information that is relevant ... to (Mr Megrahi's] original conviction, so that everyone – Scots, Americans, Libyans and the world – will be able finally to answer the serious and troubling outstanding questions in this case".
Unfortunately, the indecent haste with which the UK government issued a public interest immunity certificate to ensure such papers will not see the light of day suggests there is, indeed, much to be hidden from our ken.
Alan R Irons, Glasgow
Perhaps before any vote is taken in the Scottish Parliament on Mr MacAskill's courageous decision, which he carefully explained, giving the reasons for it, these MSPs should seek the opinions of the constituents they are representing, not speaking for, because it seems their main objective is to score political points and has little to do with why they were elected.
Unfortunately, there seem to be very few politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in, and if a considerable number vote against the decision because they must follow the party line, it will be a sad day for Scotland and the Scottish people that we are being represented by people so lacking in compassion. This will be a reason for us to feel ashamed.
Mary Morrison, Udny
I refer to David Maddox's interest in whether or not Mr al-Megrahi will die within three months (your report, 26 August) and whether or not the advice Kenny MacAskill received on this matter justified the release on licence.
To speculate on the minor detail of the precise date of al-Megrahi's demise in an attempt to attack Mr MacAskill's decision is squalid and distasteful, and both Mr Maddox and the Labour MSP Richard Simpson – particularly the latter, as a physician – should be ashamed of themselves.
It is also irrelevant: despite Mr Maddox's repeated declaration, the "three month" assessment is a rule of thumb, not a legal requirement.
John Galloway, Drumbuie
It is disappointing to read letters from US correspondents who have decided to cancel trips to Scotland or boycott Scottish products because of the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi.
Although I often disagree with the policies of the US, and the French, government, I visit these countries regularly, because I go to enjoy the countries and the company of friends I have made there over the years, who, incidentally, often complain about their leaders, also.
I believe the decision was right. In showing mercy to a dying man, Kenny MacAskill may have made a small step in healing the rift between the West and the Islamic world. Most of your letters warn of the economic consequences to Scotland of offending the US; I ask that people consider the bigger picture and don't compare dollars with humanitarian values.
Walter J Allan, Edinburgh
'Lockerbie is history. Now it’s time to talk business'
[Today's edition of The Herald contains an article by Lucy Adams in Tripoli reporting on an interview given to her by Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif-al-Islam. The following are excerpts.]
Speaking exclusively to The Herald at his home near Tripoli, Saif al Islam al Gaddafi disclosed the original prisoner transfer deal with the UK government was directly linked to talks on trade and oil.
However, he denied this had anything to do with the eventual release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and said the mercy shown by the Scottish Government had transformed the traditional Arabic view of Britain as "crusaders" against Islam.
Mr al Gaddafi praised Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, who last week freed Megrahi on compassionate grounds, as "a great man", and said his decision had opened the way for future business.
In his first full interview since the international storm surrounding the release, Mr al Gaddafi apologised for any perception that the Libyan government had not done its best to contain the jubilant scenes that accompanied Megrahi's arrival in Libya, but said they could have been far more extensive and were emphatically not a "hero's welcome".
He also revealed that Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, will not be taking part in the 40th anniversary celebrations of Colonel Gaddafi coming to power next week.
In what he said was his most important message, Mr al Gaddafi said: "Lockerbie is history. The next step is fruitful and productive business with Edinburgh and London. Libya is a promising, rich market and so let's talk about the future. There is no reason for people to be angry. Why be so angry? This is an innocent man who is dying." (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said that the infamous "deal in the desert", which saw an agreement signed between Tony Blair and Libya allowing prisoner transfers, specifically targeted Megrahi - although his name was never mentioned.
He said: "For the last seven to eight years we have been trying very hard to transfer Mr Megrahi to Libya to serve his sentence here, and we have tried many times in the past to sign the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) without mentioning Mr Megrahi, but it was obvious we were targeting Mr Megrahi and the PTA was on the table all the time.
"It was part of the bargaining deal with the UK. When Tony Blair came here we signed the agreement. It is not a secret. But I want to be very clear to your readers that we didn't mention Mr Megrahi. People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and politics and deals were all with the PTA."
Mr al Gaddafi, who is convinced of Megrahi's innocence, has led the negotiations for the Libyan Government with the UK and Scotland and was waiting to greet Megrahi on the Afriqiyah Airbus at Glasgow airport that flew him home.
On the flight to Tripoli, Mr al Gaddafi spoke briefly on camera and was later criticised for suggesting that, in all commercial contracts for oil and gas with the UK, Megrahi's transfer was on the "negotiating table". However, Mr al Gaddafi told The Herald there had been no quid pro quo and that his comments had been misunderstood partly because people do not understand the difference between the PTA and compassionate release.
"This the PTA was one animal and the other was the compassionate release," he said. "They are two completely different animals. The Scottish authorities rejected the PTA. It did not work at all, therefore it was meaningless. He was released for completely different reasons."
Ultimately, however, he said the work to secure prisoner transfer of Megrahi failed as it was rejected by Mr MacAskill. Instead, the minister chose to release Megrahi from Greenock prison early on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill and medical reports suggested he had less than three months to live.
Mr al Gaddafi said: "It was a shock and surprise for Libyan society that he was freed on compassionate grounds and it showed the Libyans that the British and Scottish are civilised people because the perception here is that they are crusaders and they hate us and Islam and hate Arabs and they are not tolerant at all of us. But this act has touched the minds of many people and shown that they are merciful and more civilised than people had thought.
"That is why, for the first time in our history, that Libyan citizens have been out in the streets waving a different flag - the Scottish flag. This is a unique event for us. This act changed the minds of many people."
Mr Brown this week spoke of his "revulsion" at what the media described as a "hero's welcome" when Megrahi was met by his family and hundreds of Libyans waving flags, including Saltires. (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said: "There was no official celebration, no guards of honour, no fireworks and no parade. We could have arranged a much better reception.
"The US knew a long time ago that Mr Megrahi would probably be released and asked us to keep the reception low-key. For the last three or four weeks it has become obvious that he might have been released, so it was not a complete surprise for them.
"Most of the families of the victims in Scotland have written to us to say they are pro the decision and more than 20% of the American families say they have no objection. Even some of the families are in favour but different parties - politicians - may be trying to use it to their own advantage."
[The Herald's leader on the subject can be read here.
Tomorrow's edition of The Herald will feature reports by Lucy Adams and Ian Ferguson on a one hour interview with Mr Megrahi.]
Speaking exclusively to The Herald at his home near Tripoli, Saif al Islam al Gaddafi disclosed the original prisoner transfer deal with the UK government was directly linked to talks on trade and oil.
However, he denied this had anything to do with the eventual release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and said the mercy shown by the Scottish Government had transformed the traditional Arabic view of Britain as "crusaders" against Islam.
Mr al Gaddafi praised Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, who last week freed Megrahi on compassionate grounds, as "a great man", and said his decision had opened the way for future business.
In his first full interview since the international storm surrounding the release, Mr al Gaddafi apologised for any perception that the Libyan government had not done its best to contain the jubilant scenes that accompanied Megrahi's arrival in Libya, but said they could have been far more extensive and were emphatically not a "hero's welcome".
He also revealed that Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, will not be taking part in the 40th anniversary celebrations of Colonel Gaddafi coming to power next week.
In what he said was his most important message, Mr al Gaddafi said: "Lockerbie is history. The next step is fruitful and productive business with Edinburgh and London. Libya is a promising, rich market and so let's talk about the future. There is no reason for people to be angry. Why be so angry? This is an innocent man who is dying." (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said that the infamous "deal in the desert", which saw an agreement signed between Tony Blair and Libya allowing prisoner transfers, specifically targeted Megrahi - although his name was never mentioned.
He said: "For the last seven to eight years we have been trying very hard to transfer Mr Megrahi to Libya to serve his sentence here, and we have tried many times in the past to sign the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) without mentioning Mr Megrahi, but it was obvious we were targeting Mr Megrahi and the PTA was on the table all the time.
"It was part of the bargaining deal with the UK. When Tony Blair came here we signed the agreement. It is not a secret. But I want to be very clear to your readers that we didn't mention Mr Megrahi. People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and politics and deals were all with the PTA."
Mr al Gaddafi, who is convinced of Megrahi's innocence, has led the negotiations for the Libyan Government with the UK and Scotland and was waiting to greet Megrahi on the Afriqiyah Airbus at Glasgow airport that flew him home.
On the flight to Tripoli, Mr al Gaddafi spoke briefly on camera and was later criticised for suggesting that, in all commercial contracts for oil and gas with the UK, Megrahi's transfer was on the "negotiating table". However, Mr al Gaddafi told The Herald there had been no quid pro quo and that his comments had been misunderstood partly because people do not understand the difference between the PTA and compassionate release.
"This the PTA was one animal and the other was the compassionate release," he said. "They are two completely different animals. The Scottish authorities rejected the PTA. It did not work at all, therefore it was meaningless. He was released for completely different reasons."
Ultimately, however, he said the work to secure prisoner transfer of Megrahi failed as it was rejected by Mr MacAskill. Instead, the minister chose to release Megrahi from Greenock prison early on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill and medical reports suggested he had less than three months to live.
Mr al Gaddafi said: "It was a shock and surprise for Libyan society that he was freed on compassionate grounds and it showed the Libyans that the British and Scottish are civilised people because the perception here is that they are crusaders and they hate us and Islam and hate Arabs and they are not tolerant at all of us. But this act has touched the minds of many people and shown that they are merciful and more civilised than people had thought.
"That is why, for the first time in our history, that Libyan citizens have been out in the streets waving a different flag - the Scottish flag. This is a unique event for us. This act changed the minds of many people."
Mr Brown this week spoke of his "revulsion" at what the media described as a "hero's welcome" when Megrahi was met by his family and hundreds of Libyans waving flags, including Saltires. (...)
Mr al Gaddafi said: "There was no official celebration, no guards of honour, no fireworks and no parade. We could have arranged a much better reception.
"The US knew a long time ago that Mr Megrahi would probably be released and asked us to keep the reception low-key. For the last three or four weeks it has become obvious that he might have been released, so it was not a complete surprise for them.
"Most of the families of the victims in Scotland have written to us to say they are pro the decision and more than 20% of the American families say they have no objection. Even some of the families are in favour but different parties - politicians - may be trying to use it to their own advantage."
[The Herald's leader on the subject can be read here.
Tomorrow's edition of The Herald will feature reports by Lucy Adams and Ian Ferguson on a one hour interview with Mr Megrahi.]
Thursday, 27 August 2009
That letter from the FBI to the Justice Secretary: is it real?
This is the heading over a devastating exposure by Jonathan Mitchell QC on his blog of the misconceptions and errors of fact and law in the letter from the Director of the FBI to Kenny MacAskill. Mr Mitchell's earlier post on the subject can be read here.
SNP says support holding firm after "tough decision"
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.]
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.]
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)