[The current issue of The Journal (a 32-page, tabloid format newspaper published on a fortnightly basis and distributed to all five of Edinburgh's higher education institutions, reaching a total readership of approximately 60,000 students) carries an article by me on three of the issues that have arisen in the context of the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads as follows:]
Government undertakings and understandings
1. There can be absolutely no doubt that an undertaking was given by the UK government that anyone convicted in the Lockerbie case would serve his sentence in Britain. In paragraph 4 of their joint letter of 24 August 1998 to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the Acting Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States said: "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom." This letter is referred to in, and formed the basis of, UN Security Council Resolution 1192 (1998)which provided the international warrant for the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist.
It is disingenuous in the extreme for Jack Straw to claim that the debate over a deal between the UK and Libyan Governments over Abdelbaset Megrahi is absurd because he was in fact repatriated, not under the prisoner transfer agreement, but through compassionate release.
In the words of the Daily Telegraph's Scottish Editor Alan Cochrane: "If there are questions to be answered about why the British government thinks that terrorist bombers are fit subjects to be included in trade deals and their release bartered away for commercial ends, then that's for them to explain. It is no business of the Nats in Edinburgh, which to be fair to them is what they've been saying to London for nigh on two years.”
2. The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.
Justice Secretary's visit to Megrahi
The visit by the Scottish 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.
The medical evidence
We should be careful not to give credit to those who argue that there are shortcomings in the medical advice which led to Mr Megrahi's release based on his imminent death because it came not from a cancer specialist but from a General Practitioner, for there is a straightforward answer. 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. 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 progress 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.
Monday, 14 September 2009
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Archbishop Tutu backs Megrahi release
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, one of the world’s most respected churchmen, has thrown his weight behind Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Archbishop Tutu’s backing comes hard on the heels of similar support from fellow South African Nelson Mandela, as revealed in The Sunday Post two weeks ago.
In a message sent to the Scottish Government Archbishop Tutu also claimed much of the outcry about the release had been caused by the welcome received by al-Megrahi in Libya.
He said this issue should be kept separate from the decision to release him.
He also called on families and friends of those who died at Lockerbie to show compassion to al-Megrahi, who has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
“I believe the Scottish Justice Secretary’s decision to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds is to be commended,” Archbishop Tutu said in his message.
“One understands the anguish of family members and friends of the victims but they honour their memory more by being compassionate than retributive,” he added.
“The outcry has been caused not so much by the release as by the welcome he got in Libya. These two issues should be separated.”
A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said Archbishop Tutu’s remarks were welcome and added, “More and more people in Scotland support the decision.
“Approval has moved forward to 45 per cent, as opposition has declined to the same level, and there is substantial international opinion in favour.
“In rejecting the Prisoner Transfer Application, and granting compassionate release to al-Megrahi to be sent back to Libya to die, the Justice Secretary took the right decision for the right reasons.”
Archbishop Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his work against apartheid in South Africa.
In 1996, he was appointed by President Nelson Mandela to chair the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established to investigate human rights violations during apartheid.
[The above is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Sunday Post, Scotland's largest-circulation Sunday newspaper.
Many other newspapers have now picked up The Sunday Post's exclusive, including The Herald, whose report can be read here.]
Archbishop Tutu’s backing comes hard on the heels of similar support from fellow South African Nelson Mandela, as revealed in The Sunday Post two weeks ago.
In a message sent to the Scottish Government Archbishop Tutu also claimed much of the outcry about the release had been caused by the welcome received by al-Megrahi in Libya.
He said this issue should be kept separate from the decision to release him.
He also called on families and friends of those who died at Lockerbie to show compassion to al-Megrahi, who has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
“I believe the Scottish Justice Secretary’s decision to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds is to be commended,” Archbishop Tutu said in his message.
“One understands the anguish of family members and friends of the victims but they honour their memory more by being compassionate than retributive,” he added.
“The outcry has been caused not so much by the release as by the welcome he got in Libya. These two issues should be separated.”
A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said Archbishop Tutu’s remarks were welcome and added, “More and more people in Scotland support the decision.
“Approval has moved forward to 45 per cent, as opposition has declined to the same level, and there is substantial international opinion in favour.
“In rejecting the Prisoner Transfer Application, and granting compassionate release to al-Megrahi to be sent back to Libya to die, the Justice Secretary took the right decision for the right reasons.”
Archbishop Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his work against apartheid in South Africa.
In 1996, he was appointed by President Nelson Mandela to chair the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established to investigate human rights violations during apartheid.
[The above is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Sunday Post, Scotland's largest-circulation Sunday newspaper.
Many other newspapers have now picked up The Sunday Post's exclusive, including The Herald, whose report can be read here.]
Megrahi's lawyers to reveal 'evidence of innocence'
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. The following are extracts.]
Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi are to release within days vital evidence they claim will clear him of involvement in the atrocity.
The development came as Megrahi's brother and doctors revealed the Libyan's health had worsened, leaving him unable to speak from his hospital bed in Tripoli. (...)
Megrahi's Glasgow-based lawyer, Tony Kelly, who was in Tripoli last week, is to publish a detailed account of what had been planned to be used as part of the Libyan's appeal. The appeal was abandoned days before his release from a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds last month.
It is believed there is no single document which would provide an alibi for Megrahi, but a mass of evidence that supports his case. Megrahi has insisted that he can prove he is innocent of the Pan Am bombing, and wants the evidence to be published. The Libyan government is also pressing for the documents to be made public.
Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi are to release within days vital evidence they claim will clear him of involvement in the atrocity.
The development came as Megrahi's brother and doctors revealed the Libyan's health had worsened, leaving him unable to speak from his hospital bed in Tripoli. (...)
Megrahi's Glasgow-based lawyer, Tony Kelly, who was in Tripoli last week, is to publish a detailed account of what had been planned to be used as part of the Libyan's appeal. The appeal was abandoned days before his release from a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds last month.
It is believed there is no single document which would provide an alibi for Megrahi, but a mass of evidence that supports his case. Megrahi has insisted that he can prove he is innocent of the Pan Am bombing, and wants the evidence to be published. The Libyan government is also pressing for the documents to be made public.
Megrahi ‘health worsens’ as bid made to release Lockerbie files
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Sunday Herald. It reads in part:]
The health of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has worsened, his brother says. Megrahi is now said to be unable to talk, due to a sudden deterioriation in his health.
"He is at a special ward at Tripoli Medical Centre. His condition has deteriorated rapidly since yesterday," Abdenasser Megrahi said.
Megrahi, jailed for the 1988 attack which claimed 270 lives, was freed on compassionate grounds from Greenock Prison in August.
Meanwhile, Kenny MacAskill is to seek cross-party support to release secret documents casting doubt on Megrahi’s conviction.
The justice secretary is to ask MSPs to approve a statutory instrument which would let him disclose documents currently held by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
In 2007, the SCCRC produced an 800-page report on Megrahi’s case, concluding there were six grounds for believing the 57-year-old Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. It has never been made public. (...)
But even with parliament’s approval, he may run into legal obstacles over some of the documents.
The UK government blocked the release of SCCRC material to Megrahi’s defence team on security grounds.
Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP who visited Megrahi in jail, said publication of the SCCRC report will help demonstrate Megrahi’s innocence, adding: "I hope that very soon Mr Megrahi himself will publish additional material that has since come to light since the SCCRC report was completed which further undermines the Crown case."
A spokeswoman for MacAskill said if parliament agreed the order, "all other legitimate obstacles and legal obligations in respect of disclosure would then need to be fully investigated and resolved before any decision could be taken on what, if any of this information, could be made public by the commission."
The health of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has worsened, his brother says. Megrahi is now said to be unable to talk, due to a sudden deterioriation in his health.
"He is at a special ward at Tripoli Medical Centre. His condition has deteriorated rapidly since yesterday," Abdenasser Megrahi said.
Megrahi, jailed for the 1988 attack which claimed 270 lives, was freed on compassionate grounds from Greenock Prison in August.
Meanwhile, Kenny MacAskill is to seek cross-party support to release secret documents casting doubt on Megrahi’s conviction.
The justice secretary is to ask MSPs to approve a statutory instrument which would let him disclose documents currently held by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
In 2007, the SCCRC produced an 800-page report on Megrahi’s case, concluding there were six grounds for believing the 57-year-old Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. It has never been made public. (...)
But even with parliament’s approval, he may run into legal obstacles over some of the documents.
The UK government blocked the release of SCCRC material to Megrahi’s defence team on security grounds.
Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP who visited Megrahi in jail, said publication of the SCCRC report will help demonstrate Megrahi’s innocence, adding: "I hope that very soon Mr Megrahi himself will publish additional material that has since come to light since the SCCRC report was completed which further undermines the Crown case."
A spokeswoman for MacAskill said if parliament agreed the order, "all other legitimate obstacles and legal obligations in respect of disclosure would then need to be fully investigated and resolved before any decision could be taken on what, if any of this information, could be made public by the commission."
Saturday, 12 September 2009
Lockerbie questions remain
[This is the heading over a letter from Jean and Barrie Berkley in the current issue of The Economist.]
Our son was killed in the Lockerbie disaster. He was on his way to spend Christmas with us in New York, where we were living at that time. We read your article following up the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (“Nowhere to hide”, September 5th). UK Families Flight 103 is a group of relatives and friends of most of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing. When the group was founded in 1989, it adopted the maxim “The Truth Must Be Known”. After more than 20 years we are still asking for answers to many more crucial matters concerning the disaster.
Members of the group have varying views about the guilt or innocence of Mr Megrahi, which colour their reaction to his release on compassionate grounds. Some think that he is innocent. Others, including ourselves, believe that we are not in a position to know whether he was involved in some way or not, since much of the evidence at the trial was circumstantial and unconvincing to many, including an official UN observer and a prominent academic who is an authority on Scottish law. It is also a fact that in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, after considering the matter for more than three years, concluded that there were six grounds for an appeal against the verdict in Mr Megrahi’s trial.
It is deeply disappointing that the appeal has now been—unnecessarily, in the case of compassionate release—abandoned. We were expecting to learn something new from the evidence we understood would have been presented. We still hope that some way will be found to release the evidence and our members are united in continuing to demand a full independent inquiry into the whole Lockerbie story. We have asked for such an inquiry many times in meetings with past and present senior government ministers, including Tony Blair. We were appalled that the ratification of the prisoner-transfer agreement, which stipulates that there must be no ongoing criminal proceedings if a prisoner is to be released, took place just as the first part of Mr Megrahi’s appeal was about to begin.
We are now hearing much talk of realpolitik, but we believe this has been the case right from the night of the crash. Why else would there be such difficulty in establishing answers to questions about, for example, the motive for the bombing of a Pan Am flight? The American attack on Tripoli in 1986 was said by Margaret Thatcher to have resulted in a marked decline in terrorist activity from Libya. Retaliation from Iran for shooting down one of its passenger jets by the Americans in July 1988 remains a distinctly plausible motive. We are told no evidence could be found to involve Iran, but we wonder how much effort went into finding evidence at a time when it would have been highly inconvenient to accuse that country or Syria.
Another unanswered question is about who else was involved. No one believes that Mr Megrahi could have operated alone and he was charged with “acting in concert with others”. Somehow, it has not been possible to establish who these others were. Surely, this is a major failure of the criminal investigation team? There were also numerous recorded warnings, some very explicit, and a prediction from the International Civil Aviation Organisation that retaliation from Iran was likely. We would like to know why the intelligence and security services failed to stop what was described at the Fatal Accident Inquiry as “a preventable disaster”.
It cannot be useful in preventing further terrorist attacks for Lockerbie to remain “a mystery”, as it was called recently by a well-informed academic. And the victims’ families surely have the right to know the full truth about the tragedy in which their loved ones died.
Our son was killed in the Lockerbie disaster. He was on his way to spend Christmas with us in New York, where we were living at that time. We read your article following up the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (“Nowhere to hide”, September 5th). UK Families Flight 103 is a group of relatives and friends of most of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing. When the group was founded in 1989, it adopted the maxim “The Truth Must Be Known”. After more than 20 years we are still asking for answers to many more crucial matters concerning the disaster.
Members of the group have varying views about the guilt or innocence of Mr Megrahi, which colour their reaction to his release on compassionate grounds. Some think that he is innocent. Others, including ourselves, believe that we are not in a position to know whether he was involved in some way or not, since much of the evidence at the trial was circumstantial and unconvincing to many, including an official UN observer and a prominent academic who is an authority on Scottish law. It is also a fact that in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, after considering the matter for more than three years, concluded that there were six grounds for an appeal against the verdict in Mr Megrahi’s trial.
It is deeply disappointing that the appeal has now been—unnecessarily, in the case of compassionate release—abandoned. We were expecting to learn something new from the evidence we understood would have been presented. We still hope that some way will be found to release the evidence and our members are united in continuing to demand a full independent inquiry into the whole Lockerbie story. We have asked for such an inquiry many times in meetings with past and present senior government ministers, including Tony Blair. We were appalled that the ratification of the prisoner-transfer agreement, which stipulates that there must be no ongoing criminal proceedings if a prisoner is to be released, took place just as the first part of Mr Megrahi’s appeal was about to begin.
We are now hearing much talk of realpolitik, but we believe this has been the case right from the night of the crash. Why else would there be such difficulty in establishing answers to questions about, for example, the motive for the bombing of a Pan Am flight? The American attack on Tripoli in 1986 was said by Margaret Thatcher to have resulted in a marked decline in terrorist activity from Libya. Retaliation from Iran for shooting down one of its passenger jets by the Americans in July 1988 remains a distinctly plausible motive. We are told no evidence could be found to involve Iran, but we wonder how much effort went into finding evidence at a time when it would have been highly inconvenient to accuse that country or Syria.
Another unanswered question is about who else was involved. No one believes that Mr Megrahi could have operated alone and he was charged with “acting in concert with others”. Somehow, it has not been possible to establish who these others were. Surely, this is a major failure of the criminal investigation team? There were also numerous recorded warnings, some very explicit, and a prediction from the International Civil Aviation Organisation that retaliation from Iran was likely. We would like to know why the intelligence and security services failed to stop what was described at the Fatal Accident Inquiry as “a preventable disaster”.
It cannot be useful in preventing further terrorist attacks for Lockerbie to remain “a mystery”, as it was called recently by a well-informed academic. And the victims’ families surely have the right to know the full truth about the tragedy in which their loved ones died.
Campaigners push for UN inquiry into Lockerbie
Campaigners are pushing for the General Assembly of the United Nations to hold an international inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
Professor Robert Black, one of the original architects of the trial at Camp Zeist, and Hans Koechler, the UN observer at the original trial, are [amongst those] putting together a list of signatories to persuade the General Assembly to establish a commission to investigate.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, and Father Patrick Keegans, the priest in Lockerbie at the time of the bombing, have already backed the move.
Only one country would be required to endorse such a commission and, unlike in the case of the Security Council, there is no right to veto such a project. The hope is to get an inquiry established once Libya takes over presidency of the General Assembly later next week.
Such a commission could not compel other countries to co- operate but could publicly name and shame them. (...)
Professor Hans Koechler, Professor of the University of Innsbruck, said the General Assembly had set up such a commission in 1968 to look at Gaza.
He said: “As the General Assembly is a deliberative body it has only moral authority and no coercive powers. It could however raise international awareness of the different issues involved and name and shame certain countries enough to ensure they do something about it. It could pressure Britain into holding an inquiry.”
While Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary who made the decision to free Megrahi last month, has said he would support a UK inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, Westminster has consistently refused.
The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee is investigating the circumstances surrounding the decision to free Megrahi but many of the relatives and those involved strongly believe the whole case – from beginning to end – needs to be scrutinised.
Dr Swire, said: “We are preparing something to send to the UN General Assembly and looking to get people to sign up to it.”
A petition is also being prepared to persuade the Prime Minister to back an inquiry in Westminster.
Other relatives of the victims have suggested there could also potentially be an application to, and another reference from, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to refer the case back for a third appeal.
Professor Black, who is supporting the application to the UN, said: “Theoretically, there could also be another application to the SCCRC – particularly as the commission has already said this may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate grounds.”
[Libya] takes over the rotating presidency of the UN General Assembly later this month.
[The above are excerpts from an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald.
This story has now been picked up by many other news outlets. The BBC News report can be read here.]
Professor Robert Black, one of the original architects of the trial at Camp Zeist, and Hans Koechler, the UN observer at the original trial, are [amongst those] putting together a list of signatories to persuade the General Assembly to establish a commission to investigate.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, and Father Patrick Keegans, the priest in Lockerbie at the time of the bombing, have already backed the move.
Only one country would be required to endorse such a commission and, unlike in the case of the Security Council, there is no right to veto such a project. The hope is to get an inquiry established once Libya takes over presidency of the General Assembly later next week.
Such a commission could not compel other countries to co- operate but could publicly name and shame them. (...)
Professor Hans Koechler, Professor of the University of Innsbruck, said the General Assembly had set up such a commission in 1968 to look at Gaza.
He said: “As the General Assembly is a deliberative body it has only moral authority and no coercive powers. It could however raise international awareness of the different issues involved and name and shame certain countries enough to ensure they do something about it. It could pressure Britain into holding an inquiry.”
While Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary who made the decision to free Megrahi last month, has said he would support a UK inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, Westminster has consistently refused.
The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee is investigating the circumstances surrounding the decision to free Megrahi but many of the relatives and those involved strongly believe the whole case – from beginning to end – needs to be scrutinised.
Dr Swire, said: “We are preparing something to send to the UN General Assembly and looking to get people to sign up to it.”
A petition is also being prepared to persuade the Prime Minister to back an inquiry in Westminster.
Other relatives of the victims have suggested there could also potentially be an application to, and another reference from, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to refer the case back for a third appeal.
Professor Black, who is supporting the application to the UN, said: “Theoretically, there could also be another application to the SCCRC – particularly as the commission has already said this may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate grounds.”
[Libya] takes over the rotating presidency of the UN General Assembly later this month.
[The above are excerpts from an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald.
This story has now been picked up by many other news outlets. The BBC News report can be read here.]
Gareth Peirce calls for independent inquiry into Lockerbie bombing
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times. It reads in part:]
An independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing was called for last night by a leading human rights lawyer.
Gareth Peirce, who has represented a string of high-profile victims of miscarriage of justice, said that the forensic evidence on which the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was convicted was flawed.
The finding itself was “very, very worrying” and based the same kind of discredited forensic science that was at the heart of several notable miscarriages of justice in the '70s and '80s, she said.
“The [Lockerbie] case was founded on twin pillars: one, that al-Megrahi was linked to a charred fragment of a bomb timer; and second, his identification was ‘claimed’ by a man who could not be sure of his evidence.
“Has everyone forgotten the lessions learned of lawed scientified evidence and identification?
“The point being made by the families over 20 years is that they want to know the cause of the Lockerbie diaster. And at every turn, limitations have been put on their ability to discover it.” (...)
She said that there had been a Fatal Accidents Inquiry in 1999, which was limited to the immediate cause of the explosion so as not to prejudice future prosecutions, she said.
Some 15 years later there was the prosecution in the Hague of two Libyans, where the family could only be prsent and observe. But there had never been a “proper explanation of what they want to hear.”
But a UN assessor appointed to the trial had been scathing of the judges’ verdict, she adde, and of the “atmosphere of political interference that permeated the trial”.
It was now down to ministers to set up an independent inquiry, whether Scottish or UK ministers, she said.
“I completely endorse what the families say, that this country, Britain, bears the responsibility for there being an adequate investigation into what actually occured.”
She added that the fact that the case was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Scottish Criminal Cases Appeal Commission showed the huge obstacles that al-Megrahi had surmounted.
“It is very difficult to get a case referred back. “He then had a choice of abandoning it and going home to die, or staying a fighting it,” she added.
But it was crucial that the evidence assembled came out. “The families had believed that after 20 years there was about to be a proper investigation. But their wishes have been frustrated.”
An independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing was called for last night by a leading human rights lawyer.
Gareth Peirce, who has represented a string of high-profile victims of miscarriage of justice, said that the forensic evidence on which the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was convicted was flawed.
The finding itself was “very, very worrying” and based the same kind of discredited forensic science that was at the heart of several notable miscarriages of justice in the '70s and '80s, she said.
“The [Lockerbie] case was founded on twin pillars: one, that al-Megrahi was linked to a charred fragment of a bomb timer; and second, his identification was ‘claimed’ by a man who could not be sure of his evidence.
“Has everyone forgotten the lessions learned of lawed scientified evidence and identification?
“The point being made by the families over 20 years is that they want to know the cause of the Lockerbie diaster. And at every turn, limitations have been put on their ability to discover it.” (...)
She said that there had been a Fatal Accidents Inquiry in 1999, which was limited to the immediate cause of the explosion so as not to prejudice future prosecutions, she said.
Some 15 years later there was the prosecution in the Hague of two Libyans, where the family could only be prsent and observe. But there had never been a “proper explanation of what they want to hear.”
But a UN assessor appointed to the trial had been scathing of the judges’ verdict, she adde, and of the “atmosphere of political interference that permeated the trial”.
It was now down to ministers to set up an independent inquiry, whether Scottish or UK ministers, she said.
“I completely endorse what the families say, that this country, Britain, bears the responsibility for there being an adequate investigation into what actually occured.”
She added that the fact that the case was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Scottish Criminal Cases Appeal Commission showed the huge obstacles that al-Megrahi had surmounted.
“It is very difficult to get a case referred back. “He then had a choice of abandoning it and going home to die, or staying a fighting it,” she added.
But it was crucial that the evidence assembled came out. “The families had believed that after 20 years there was about to be a proper investigation. But their wishes have been frustrated.”
Friday, 11 September 2009
Why Libya welcomed Megrahi
[This is the headline over an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by Ali Aujali, Libyan ambassador to the United States. It dates from 2 September, but has only just come to my attention. The following are excerpts.]
When Abdel Baset al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli following his release from Scotland last week, the world saw a single event in two very different ways. Through the prism of the Western media, Americans saw a terrorist being given a hero's welcome by a country eager to celebrate mass murder. Libyans saw a dying man—believed to be innocent by his countrymen and many others world-wide—being embraced by his family.
The misperception of both the circumstances that led to Mr. Megrahi's release and the reception he received upon his arrival in Libya has reopened painful wounds for the families of those lost in the Lockerbie tragedy. It's also threatened to derail years of progress and newly restored relations between Libya and the West.
While many take Mr. Megrahi's guilt for granted, there is a large and growing body of evidence that casts serious doubt on his conviction and suggests that an innocent man may have been languishing in prison. This is a view shared by many observers—not only in Tripoli, but in Edinburgh, London, New York, Washington and even among many families of the victims of that terrible act. This perspective has been absent from much of the reporting that has surrounded Mr. Megrahi's return.
Hans Koechler, a U.N.-appointed observer at Mr. Megrahi's trial in 2001, called the conviction a "spectacular miscarriage of justice." In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission formally concluded after three years of painstaking inquiry that the conviction of Mr. Megrahi may have been a "miscarriage of justice" in that it rested on evidence that had been discredited. Mr. Megrahi has been pursuing an appeal in order to clear his name. But when he learned of his terminal illness, he gave up this appeal in order to spend his remaining days with his family.
When Mr. Megrahi landed in Tripoli, the reception he was given was not a "hero's welcome for a terrorist," as some have characterized it. Libyans would not regard any man who they believed to have taken 270 innocent lives as a hero. Just the opposite: We would find such a monster to be abhorrent.
Most of those on the tarmac were members of Mr. Megrahi's extended family and tribe who have followed his plight and know he has very little time to live. The Scottish flags they flew alongside Libyan flags were not an endorsement of the terrible deeds of which he was accused. They were a powerful sign of solidarity between two very different nations that nonetheless share the value of compassion.
There were no parades for Mr. Megrahi, and the streets were quiet the next day in observance of Ramadan. It is worth repeating that the happiness on the faces of his family and his countrymen would be expressed by any people welcoming home a loved one whom they believe was wrongly imprisoned in a foreign land.
It is important to reiterate that the Libyan people stand firmly and unequivocally alongside America and the West in the fight against terrorism. As anyone who has spent time with Libyans can attest, we are a compassionate people, and we feel deep sympathy for those who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie bombing, just as we do for the victims of any terrorist attack. We are confident that, when presented with the facts, the American people and the international community will not misconstrue our warm welcome for Mr. Megrahi as indicative of support for terrorism.
[An op-ed along similar lines by Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi appeared in The New York Times on 30 August 2009.]
When Abdel Baset al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli following his release from Scotland last week, the world saw a single event in two very different ways. Through the prism of the Western media, Americans saw a terrorist being given a hero's welcome by a country eager to celebrate mass murder. Libyans saw a dying man—believed to be innocent by his countrymen and many others world-wide—being embraced by his family.
The misperception of both the circumstances that led to Mr. Megrahi's release and the reception he received upon his arrival in Libya has reopened painful wounds for the families of those lost in the Lockerbie tragedy. It's also threatened to derail years of progress and newly restored relations between Libya and the West.
While many take Mr. Megrahi's guilt for granted, there is a large and growing body of evidence that casts serious doubt on his conviction and suggests that an innocent man may have been languishing in prison. This is a view shared by many observers—not only in Tripoli, but in Edinburgh, London, New York, Washington and even among many families of the victims of that terrible act. This perspective has been absent from much of the reporting that has surrounded Mr. Megrahi's return.
Hans Koechler, a U.N.-appointed observer at Mr. Megrahi's trial in 2001, called the conviction a "spectacular miscarriage of justice." In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission formally concluded after three years of painstaking inquiry that the conviction of Mr. Megrahi may have been a "miscarriage of justice" in that it rested on evidence that had been discredited. Mr. Megrahi has been pursuing an appeal in order to clear his name. But when he learned of his terminal illness, he gave up this appeal in order to spend his remaining days with his family.
When Mr. Megrahi landed in Tripoli, the reception he was given was not a "hero's welcome for a terrorist," as some have characterized it. Libyans would not regard any man who they believed to have taken 270 innocent lives as a hero. Just the opposite: We would find such a monster to be abhorrent.
Most of those on the tarmac were members of Mr. Megrahi's extended family and tribe who have followed his plight and know he has very little time to live. The Scottish flags they flew alongside Libyan flags were not an endorsement of the terrible deeds of which he was accused. They were a powerful sign of solidarity between two very different nations that nonetheless share the value of compassion.
There were no parades for Mr. Megrahi, and the streets were quiet the next day in observance of Ramadan. It is worth repeating that the happiness on the faces of his family and his countrymen would be expressed by any people welcoming home a loved one whom they believe was wrongly imprisoned in a foreign land.
It is important to reiterate that the Libyan people stand firmly and unequivocally alongside America and the West in the fight against terrorism. As anyone who has spent time with Libyans can attest, we are a compassionate people, and we feel deep sympathy for those who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie bombing, just as we do for the victims of any terrorist attack. We are confident that, when presented with the facts, the American people and the international community will not misconstrue our warm welcome for Mr. Megrahi as indicative of support for terrorism.
[An op-ed along similar lines by Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi appeared in The New York Times on 30 August 2009.]
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Petition to set up public inquiry into Lockerbie
An online petition to the UK Prime Minister has been instituted. It reads: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.
I would have preferred the petition simply to refer to the "Lockerbie disaster" since there are those, such as John Parkes and Robbie the Pict, who contend, on grounds which are not fanciful, that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was caused, not by a bomb but by the explosion of munitions being carried as cargo. This explanation, as well as the various IED explanations, deserves to be explored. I would also have preferred the petition to refer to an "independent inquiry" since the demand that the inquiry be "public" makes it easier for the UK Government to resist on the ground that certain pertinent evidence is so sensitive that its public disclosure is not in the national interest: witness the assertions of public interest immunity advanced by the Foreign Secretary in Abdelbaset Megrahi's now-abandoned appeal.
However, notwithstanding these reservations, I shall be supporting the petition. British citizens or residents who wish to sign it can do so here.
I would have preferred the petition simply to refer to the "Lockerbie disaster" since there are those, such as John Parkes and Robbie the Pict, who contend, on grounds which are not fanciful, that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was caused, not by a bomb but by the explosion of munitions being carried as cargo. This explanation, as well as the various IED explanations, deserves to be explored. I would also have preferred the petition to refer to an "independent inquiry" since the demand that the inquiry be "public" makes it easier for the UK Government to resist on the ground that certain pertinent evidence is so sensitive that its public disclosure is not in the national interest: witness the assertions of public interest immunity advanced by the Foreign Secretary in Abdelbaset Megrahi's now-abandoned appeal.
However, notwithstanding these reservations, I shall be supporting the petition. British citizens or residents who wish to sign it can do so here.
Blair: It was right to release Megrahi
Tony Blair last night waded into the Lockerbie bomber row by backing the decision to free him.
The former PM risked further angering the US public by insisting Abdel al-Megrahi's release was right.
Mr Blair also claimed he made the world a safer place by invading Iraq alongside America.
He compared the freeing of al-Megrahi to the part he played in securing peace in Ulster. Mr Blair told US chat show host David Letterman: "I think the hardest thing I ever did was sit down with the families of the victims of IRA terrorism.
"They'd say to me, 'How can you sit in the same room with the people responsible for killing my son or my daughter?' My answer to that was because I believe if they are prepared to change we can save lives and make peace in the future."
[The above are extracts from a report in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. I'm sure it's a great comfort to Kenny MacAskill that the man who dragged the UK into the illegal Iraq adventure thinks that his decision to repatriate Abdelbaset Megrahi was the right one.]
The former PM risked further angering the US public by insisting Abdel al-Megrahi's release was right.
Mr Blair also claimed he made the world a safer place by invading Iraq alongside America.
He compared the freeing of al-Megrahi to the part he played in securing peace in Ulster. Mr Blair told US chat show host David Letterman: "I think the hardest thing I ever did was sit down with the families of the victims of IRA terrorism.
"They'd say to me, 'How can you sit in the same room with the people responsible for killing my son or my daughter?' My answer to that was because I believe if they are prepared to change we can save lives and make peace in the future."
[The above are extracts from a report in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. I'm sure it's a great comfort to Kenny MacAskill that the man who dragged the UK into the illegal Iraq adventure thinks that his decision to repatriate Abdelbaset Megrahi was the right one.]
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Gaddafi's address to UN General Assembly
[The following are excerpts from an article just posted on the English-language website of the leading Arabic daily newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat.]
Libya has condemned Washington’s diplomatic warnings to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi against the repercussions of aggravating US emotions regarding the Lockerbie bombings during his upcoming visit to the United Nations headquarters in New York later this month where he will deliver a speech as head of the African Union.
The official spokesman for the Libyan foreign office stated that it is wrong for Washington to try to dictate to Gaddafi what he should say at the event.
Gaddafi is scheduled to visit the UN General Assembly for the first time since coming to power in Libya. Earlier this month, Gaddafi celebrated the 40th anniversary of the coup against the Libyan monarch King Idris al Senussi in 1969, which brought him to power.
Gaddafi ... will deliver a speech to world leaders at the annual meeting on September 23 directly after President Obama. (...)
The Libyan Foreign Ministry Spokesman said, ‘Al Megrahi in our opinion and in the opinion of many states is a “political hostage” and this was corroborated by Arab League resolutions and by the neutral stances of Africa and the Islamic world in this regard.’ Meanwhile, in what seemed to be a response to US criticism of the way al Megrahi was received in Libya, the Libyan official added, ‘We were not receiving a criminal or a terrorist; we were receiving a victim and the documents, which are backed by many families of [Lockerbie] victims, will prove his innocence and they must refer back to these [Arab League] resolutions.’
Libya has condemned Washington’s diplomatic warnings to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi against the repercussions of aggravating US emotions regarding the Lockerbie bombings during his upcoming visit to the United Nations headquarters in New York later this month where he will deliver a speech as head of the African Union.
The official spokesman for the Libyan foreign office stated that it is wrong for Washington to try to dictate to Gaddafi what he should say at the event.
Gaddafi is scheduled to visit the UN General Assembly for the first time since coming to power in Libya. Earlier this month, Gaddafi celebrated the 40th anniversary of the coup against the Libyan monarch King Idris al Senussi in 1969, which brought him to power.
Gaddafi ... will deliver a speech to world leaders at the annual meeting on September 23 directly after President Obama. (...)
The Libyan Foreign Ministry Spokesman said, ‘Al Megrahi in our opinion and in the opinion of many states is a “political hostage” and this was corroborated by Arab League resolutions and by the neutral stances of Africa and the Islamic world in this regard.’ Meanwhile, in what seemed to be a response to US criticism of the way al Megrahi was received in Libya, the Libyan official added, ‘We were not receiving a criminal or a terrorist; we were receiving a victim and the documents, which are backed by many families of [Lockerbie] victims, will prove his innocence and they must refer back to these [Arab League] resolutions.’
UK and Libya
[The following are excerpts from a recent post on the Craig Murray blog. Craig Murray is a former British ambassador and is currently the Rector of the University of Dundee.]
It was absolutely right to release al-Megrahi. Every dying person deserves what comfort, pain alleviation and disease amelioration can be provided by the presence of family and by medical treatment. There should be no place in a justice system for the cruel vindictiveness of making a now harmless person die in jail. Scotland and the SNP have shown a civilised example; those who attack them have shown ugliness. (...)
The Tories have shown their blood-baying, American bum-sucking true colours. New Labour have been caught in their usual horrible hypocrisy, attempting to capitalise on anti-SNP right wing media reaction, while having been deliberately paving the way for the release for years. (...)
Jack Straw has admitted that trade was the deciding factor in his agreeing that al-Megrahi should not be excluded from the prisoner exchange agreement. Bill Rammell has admitted that as an FCO Minister he told the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want to see al-Megrahi die in jail. There is no room to doubt that the UK's assiduous courting of LIbya saw all kinds of positive signals given quietly on al-Megrahi, whose release was an obvious Libyan demand in the normalisation of relations.
The infuriating thing is that New Labour actually did the right thing in their dealings with the Libyans. Jack Straw's positions and Gordon Brown's message were the right ones. But a combination of fear of the United States, a right wing populist media instinct and a desire to attack the SNP has led New Labour to tyy to hide the truth - and try so badly as to bring down more media scorn than if they had just come out and supported the release in the first place.
Al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber. The scandal is not that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation led to his release. The scandal is that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation were what led the Libyans to hand him over in the first place - very much in the way their ancestors had given hostages to Imperial Rome. His family were richly rewarded, made wealthy for generations by his acceptance of the role of sacrificial lamb, and there was the hope that he would be acquitted. That he was convicted on very dubious evidence shocked many, especially Dr Jim Swire, representative of the victims' families, who followed the evidence painstakingly and has never accepted al-Megrahi's guilt.
Syria was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb. But in the first Iraq war, we needed Syria's support, while Libya remained a supporter of Iraq. Lockerbie was a bar to our new alliance with Damascus, so extremely conveniently, and with perfect timing, it was discovered that actually it was the Libyans!! Anyone who believes that fake intelligence started with Iraqi WMD is an idiot.
It haunts me that I had a chance to read the intelligence reports which, I was told by a shocked FCO colleague in Aviation and Maritime Department where I then worked, showed that the new anti-Libyan narrative was false. I say in self-defence that at the time I was literally working day and night, sleeping on a camp bed. I was organising the Embargo Surveillance Centre and I was convinced that a watertight full physical embargo could remove the need to invade Iraq. I was impatient of the interruption. I listened to my colleague only distractedly and did not want to go through the rigmarole of signing for and transporting the reports I hadn't got time to look at then. Events overtook me, and I never did see them.
Which is not to say the Libyan regime was not a sponsor of terrorism. It was. It just didn't do Lockerbie. (...)
Ultimately, negotiating with "terrorists" and "rogue states" has to be done. The strange thing is that New Labour's Libyan policy has been one of its genuine successes - and makes a nonsense of its argument that we could deal with Saddam no other way. There should be more human rights emphasis in the relationship, but the apporach has been basically the right one, just as it was right to settle with the IRA, and just as it is long overdue to settle with the Taliban.
On a rare occasion when this government has shown wisdom, it appears ashamed of it.
[A further post dated 25 September on the Craig Murray blog contains the following:
"As I have previously stated, I can affirm that the FCO and MI6 knew that al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber.
"I strongly recommend that you read this devastating article by the great lawyer Gareth Peirce, in the London Review of Books. Virtually every paragraph provides information which in itself demolishes the conviction. The totality of the information Peirce gives is a quite stunning picture of not accidental but deliberate miscarriage of justice."]
It was absolutely right to release al-Megrahi. Every dying person deserves what comfort, pain alleviation and disease amelioration can be provided by the presence of family and by medical treatment. There should be no place in a justice system for the cruel vindictiveness of making a now harmless person die in jail. Scotland and the SNP have shown a civilised example; those who attack them have shown ugliness. (...)
The Tories have shown their blood-baying, American bum-sucking true colours. New Labour have been caught in their usual horrible hypocrisy, attempting to capitalise on anti-SNP right wing media reaction, while having been deliberately paving the way for the release for years. (...)
Jack Straw has admitted that trade was the deciding factor in his agreeing that al-Megrahi should not be excluded from the prisoner exchange agreement. Bill Rammell has admitted that as an FCO Minister he told the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want to see al-Megrahi die in jail. There is no room to doubt that the UK's assiduous courting of LIbya saw all kinds of positive signals given quietly on al-Megrahi, whose release was an obvious Libyan demand in the normalisation of relations.
The infuriating thing is that New Labour actually did the right thing in their dealings with the Libyans. Jack Straw's positions and Gordon Brown's message were the right ones. But a combination of fear of the United States, a right wing populist media instinct and a desire to attack the SNP has led New Labour to tyy to hide the truth - and try so badly as to bring down more media scorn than if they had just come out and supported the release in the first place.
Al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber. The scandal is not that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation led to his release. The scandal is that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation were what led the Libyans to hand him over in the first place - very much in the way their ancestors had given hostages to Imperial Rome. His family were richly rewarded, made wealthy for generations by his acceptance of the role of sacrificial lamb, and there was the hope that he would be acquitted. That he was convicted on very dubious evidence shocked many, especially Dr Jim Swire, representative of the victims' families, who followed the evidence painstakingly and has never accepted al-Megrahi's guilt.
Syria was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb. But in the first Iraq war, we needed Syria's support, while Libya remained a supporter of Iraq. Lockerbie was a bar to our new alliance with Damascus, so extremely conveniently, and with perfect timing, it was discovered that actually it was the Libyans!! Anyone who believes that fake intelligence started with Iraqi WMD is an idiot.
It haunts me that I had a chance to read the intelligence reports which, I was told by a shocked FCO colleague in Aviation and Maritime Department where I then worked, showed that the new anti-Libyan narrative was false. I say in self-defence that at the time I was literally working day and night, sleeping on a camp bed. I was organising the Embargo Surveillance Centre and I was convinced that a watertight full physical embargo could remove the need to invade Iraq. I was impatient of the interruption. I listened to my colleague only distractedly and did not want to go through the rigmarole of signing for and transporting the reports I hadn't got time to look at then. Events overtook me, and I never did see them.
Which is not to say the Libyan regime was not a sponsor of terrorism. It was. It just didn't do Lockerbie. (...)
Ultimately, negotiating with "terrorists" and "rogue states" has to be done. The strange thing is that New Labour's Libyan policy has been one of its genuine successes - and makes a nonsense of its argument that we could deal with Saddam no other way. There should be more human rights emphasis in the relationship, but the apporach has been basically the right one, just as it was right to settle with the IRA, and just as it is long overdue to settle with the Taliban.
On a rare occasion when this government has shown wisdom, it appears ashamed of it.
[A further post dated 25 September on the Craig Murray blog contains the following:
"As I have previously stated, I can affirm that the FCO and MI6 knew that al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber.
"I strongly recommend that you read this devastating article by the great lawyer Gareth Peirce, in the London Review of Books. Virtually every paragraph provides information which in itself demolishes the conviction. The totality of the information Peirce gives is a quite stunning picture of not accidental but deliberate miscarriage of justice."]
No need to hide politics behind Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an opinion piece in today's edition of Edinburgh's evening newspaper, the Evening News by Margo MacDonald MSP, who -- for the benefit of foreign readers -- sits as an independent in the Scottish Parliament and is a fervent supporter of Scottish independence. She abstained in the Scottish Parliament vote on whether Kenny MacAskill was right to release Mr Megrahi. The article reads in part:]
When Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was tried for the murder of 270 people at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, the usual process was amended. (...) [H]is trial was conducted without a jury, with the verdict and sentence being decided by three Scottish High Court judges. (...)
A few people at his trial, whose numbers have grown over the years, harbour suspicions that the changed procedures served to protect the security interests of these states, and others, at least as much as al-Megrahi's safety. But allowing for the compromises in procedure, there was still the intention that justice should be the overriding factor.
Many people felt uneasy as the jury-free proceedings were played out in public, in the presence of victims' relatives. But they trusted in everything else being done according to the book. It's now known the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission has turned up evidence withheld from al-Megrahi's defence lawyers at the trial, pertinent enough to have the SCCRC advise that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. You can bet your bottom petro-dollar that if there was any manipulation of evidence, it was down to diplomatic, and not judicial considerations.
This being the case, why should anyone find it an unthinkable departure from the paths of righteousness for Kenny MacAskill to have taken notice of the multiplicity of state interests involved with his decision on whether to agree to al-Megrahi's request to be allowed to end his days in Libya? Legal considerations doubtless influenced and guided the justice secretary's decision. But it beggars belief that in meetings between civil servants from Edinburgh and London, transatlantic phone calls between the American State Department and Scotland's Justice Ministry, and meetings and communications between Arab, Scottish and UK governments there were no exchanges of views on what should happen to al-Megrahi.
Apart from anything else, people who were not directly affected by the atrocity can address the issue buffered by the 20 years that have passed. In the same way as many other wicked cruelties have come to be accommodated by their victims as the world has moved on and new relationships have developed, so the realpolitik of 2009 is different from that of 1988. The Berlin Wall was still in place, the world was divided between states under the influence of either Moscow or Washington. In the Middle East, internal civil war all but destroyed Lebanon, Iran and Iraq had pursued a long, destructive war, other Arab countries were unable to exert influence or power in defence of their interests because of internal tensions, and Libya was a pariah state. (...)
Nelson Mandela's was the name invoked by the supporters of the decision to let al-Megrahi go home. Twenty years ago, he was still a convicted terrorist. It's ironic that should have been his legal status when he was released from prison, and nobody even thought to ask about the legal niceties. (...)
The details of such things may have blurred in the public mind, but experience and common sense ensures understanding of all the pressures on the justice secretary when the Libyans and al-Megrahi applied for release.
The Scottish government and the justice secretary would have saved themselves a load of angst if they'd admitted this up front. For the record, I agreed with the decision, but thought the stated reasons for it didn't ring totally true.
When Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was tried for the murder of 270 people at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, the usual process was amended. (...) [H]is trial was conducted without a jury, with the verdict and sentence being decided by three Scottish High Court judges. (...)
A few people at his trial, whose numbers have grown over the years, harbour suspicions that the changed procedures served to protect the security interests of these states, and others, at least as much as al-Megrahi's safety. But allowing for the compromises in procedure, there was still the intention that justice should be the overriding factor.
Many people felt uneasy as the jury-free proceedings were played out in public, in the presence of victims' relatives. But they trusted in everything else being done according to the book. It's now known the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission has turned up evidence withheld from al-Megrahi's defence lawyers at the trial, pertinent enough to have the SCCRC advise that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. You can bet your bottom petro-dollar that if there was any manipulation of evidence, it was down to diplomatic, and not judicial considerations.
This being the case, why should anyone find it an unthinkable departure from the paths of righteousness for Kenny MacAskill to have taken notice of the multiplicity of state interests involved with his decision on whether to agree to al-Megrahi's request to be allowed to end his days in Libya? Legal considerations doubtless influenced and guided the justice secretary's decision. But it beggars belief that in meetings between civil servants from Edinburgh and London, transatlantic phone calls between the American State Department and Scotland's Justice Ministry, and meetings and communications between Arab, Scottish and UK governments there were no exchanges of views on what should happen to al-Megrahi.
Apart from anything else, people who were not directly affected by the atrocity can address the issue buffered by the 20 years that have passed. In the same way as many other wicked cruelties have come to be accommodated by their victims as the world has moved on and new relationships have developed, so the realpolitik of 2009 is different from that of 1988. The Berlin Wall was still in place, the world was divided between states under the influence of either Moscow or Washington. In the Middle East, internal civil war all but destroyed Lebanon, Iran and Iraq had pursued a long, destructive war, other Arab countries were unable to exert influence or power in defence of their interests because of internal tensions, and Libya was a pariah state. (...)
Nelson Mandela's was the name invoked by the supporters of the decision to let al-Megrahi go home. Twenty years ago, he was still a convicted terrorist. It's ironic that should have been his legal status when he was released from prison, and nobody even thought to ask about the legal niceties. (...)
The details of such things may have blurred in the public mind, but experience and common sense ensures understanding of all the pressures on the justice secretary when the Libyans and al-Megrahi applied for release.
The Scottish government and the justice secretary would have saved themselves a load of angst if they'd admitted this up front. For the record, I agreed with the decision, but thought the stated reasons for it didn't ring totally true.
Full inquiry to be held on Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report by David Maddox in The Scotsman. The following are the first two paragraphs.]
A Holyrood committee is to hold a full inquiry into the way the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber was made.
It is understood that the planned inquiry, by the justice committee, will focus on concerns that the decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi back to Libya was based on investment and trade concerns rather than legal and health grounds. This comes after questions were asked by the Conservatives about justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan, who is an energy industry executive with the firm SeaEnergy Renewables, which has ties to Libya.
[Note by RB: No other newspaper -- not even The Wall Street Journal which broke the "story" -- has suggested that the current employer of Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan has links with Libya. Indeed, The Press and Journal, a newspaper that has good sources within the energy industry, specifically states that Ramco (the owner of SeaEnergy, a company concerned exclusively with offshore renewable energy) has no known links with Libya.
What therefore is the source of David Maddox's bald assertion that SeaEnergy Renewables "has ties to Libya"? Did he simply make it up? Does he stand by it? If not, will he and his newspaper publish a correction and an apology? I think we should be told.]
A Holyrood committee is to hold a full inquiry into the way the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber was made.
It is understood that the planned inquiry, by the justice committee, will focus on concerns that the decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi back to Libya was based on investment and trade concerns rather than legal and health grounds. This comes after questions were asked by the Conservatives about justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan, who is an energy industry executive with the firm SeaEnergy Renewables, which has ties to Libya.
[Note by RB: No other newspaper -- not even The Wall Street Journal which broke the "story" -- has suggested that the current employer of Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan has links with Libya. Indeed, The Press and Journal, a newspaper that has good sources within the energy industry, specifically states that Ramco (the owner of SeaEnergy, a company concerned exclusively with offshore renewable energy) has no known links with Libya.
What therefore is the source of David Maddox's bald assertion that SeaEnergy Renewables "has ties to Libya"? Did he simply make it up? Does he stand by it? If not, will he and his newspaper publish a correction and an apology? I think we should be told.]
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Wall Street waffle
[This is the heading over a post by The Herald's Chief Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie, on the Parcel of Rogues blog on the heraldscotland website. It reads in part:]
Last Thursday the main press aide to Annabel Goldie was in the Black and White corridor off the Holyrood debating chamber handing out the documentation on which the Tory leader had just based her attack on Alex Salmond at FMQs.
Pages one and two were mainly extracts from Libya-related minutes and correspondence which we had all written about since the Government released its first big batch of Megrahi material. Then there was a two-page letter from Alex Salmond to Qatar’s UK ambassador. After reading this I turned to the spin doctor and said: “Doesn’t this rather knock down your whole story?”
In what way, he asked. Well, I replied, in this letter the FM is repeatedly at pains to say he can’t discuss the Megrahi issue and refers the Qataris to Kenny MacAskill who will deal with it according to due process and strictly on judicial grounds. The spin doctor continued to demur so I asked straight out: “What exactly is Annabel Goldie alleging?”
Back came the response: “Oh, we’re not alleging anything – we’re simply asking questions.”
But here is what Ms Goldie said, employing assertions rather than questions: “I am afraid that there are suspicions — and facts. Fact: The First Minister is seeking money for his Scottish Futures Trust from Arab states. Fact: on 11 June 2009, he met the Qatari Government and discussed trade and Mr al-Megrahi’s release at the same time. Fact: on 17 July 2009, the Qatari Government wrote to the Scottish Government, supporting compassionate release. Fact: One week later, Mr al-Megrahi applied for compassionate release. That does not look good.”
Later, the Government pointed out that the Scottish Futures Trust has made no such pitch for Arab money, and at the meeting with the Qataris the minutes showed the FM determined not to conflate talk of trade with the issue of Megrahi. As to the Qatar/Arab League support for compassionate release and Megrahi’s application under the 1993 legislation, neither was down to Ministers. But never mind, as long as it “does not look good” Ms Goldie had managed to throw some mud in the hope that some would stick.
But five days on, should Ms Goldie have joined in the latest attempt at mud-slinging, this time by the Wall Street Journal? Here’s what the WSJ said: “Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who recently released the Lockerbie bomber, has a brother who is an energy-industry executive and who has worked at firms that have pitched for oil business in Libya.
“The Scottish government, which has said that it made full disclosure of facts relevant to the decision, didn’t disclose this relationship, and opposition politicians on Monday criticized this.”
Note the tenses – has worked at firms that have pitched for Libya business. When would that be: Read on and you discover that Allan MacAskill worked for for 20 years for BP, who have had Libyan links, but that he left the company in 1998 (...) MacAskill fils then joined Canadian firm Talisman, a firm which the WSJ tells us “has been looking the past few years to get a foothold in Libya, but has yet to establish a position.”
So, one company he worked for has known Libyan links but he left that company more than a decade ago, while the one he joined next has never had any contracts with Libya. As for the company he joined last year? SeaEnergy are into offshore windfarms and conduct no business with Libya whatsoever. All of which may explain why the Scottish Government did not see fit to “disclose this relationship” since to call it tenuous would be charitable.
Still it let Ms Goldie get in on the act again: “If any part of the Scottish Government has any connections to Libyan businesses then they need to come clean. The SNP Scottish Government need to be open and transparent once and for all and stop this constant drip drip of information which only serves to undermine Scotland and the UK.”
If she lends her name to anything further that is as tenuous as this, then the only thing dripping away will be Ms Goldie’s credibility.
Last Thursday the main press aide to Annabel Goldie was in the Black and White corridor off the Holyrood debating chamber handing out the documentation on which the Tory leader had just based her attack on Alex Salmond at FMQs.
Pages one and two were mainly extracts from Libya-related minutes and correspondence which we had all written about since the Government released its first big batch of Megrahi material. Then there was a two-page letter from Alex Salmond to Qatar’s UK ambassador. After reading this I turned to the spin doctor and said: “Doesn’t this rather knock down your whole story?”
In what way, he asked. Well, I replied, in this letter the FM is repeatedly at pains to say he can’t discuss the Megrahi issue and refers the Qataris to Kenny MacAskill who will deal with it according to due process and strictly on judicial grounds. The spin doctor continued to demur so I asked straight out: “What exactly is Annabel Goldie alleging?”
Back came the response: “Oh, we’re not alleging anything – we’re simply asking questions.”
But here is what Ms Goldie said, employing assertions rather than questions: “I am afraid that there are suspicions — and facts. Fact: The First Minister is seeking money for his Scottish Futures Trust from Arab states. Fact: on 11 June 2009, he met the Qatari Government and discussed trade and Mr al-Megrahi’s release at the same time. Fact: on 17 July 2009, the Qatari Government wrote to the Scottish Government, supporting compassionate release. Fact: One week later, Mr al-Megrahi applied for compassionate release. That does not look good.”
Later, the Government pointed out that the Scottish Futures Trust has made no such pitch for Arab money, and at the meeting with the Qataris the minutes showed the FM determined not to conflate talk of trade with the issue of Megrahi. As to the Qatar/Arab League support for compassionate release and Megrahi’s application under the 1993 legislation, neither was down to Ministers. But never mind, as long as it “does not look good” Ms Goldie had managed to throw some mud in the hope that some would stick.
But five days on, should Ms Goldie have joined in the latest attempt at mud-slinging, this time by the Wall Street Journal? Here’s what the WSJ said: “Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who recently released the Lockerbie bomber, has a brother who is an energy-industry executive and who has worked at firms that have pitched for oil business in Libya.
“The Scottish government, which has said that it made full disclosure of facts relevant to the decision, didn’t disclose this relationship, and opposition politicians on Monday criticized this.”
Note the tenses – has worked at firms that have pitched for Libya business. When would that be: Read on and you discover that Allan MacAskill worked for for 20 years for BP, who have had Libyan links, but that he left the company in 1998 (...) MacAskill fils then joined Canadian firm Talisman, a firm which the WSJ tells us “has been looking the past few years to get a foothold in Libya, but has yet to establish a position.”
So, one company he worked for has known Libyan links but he left that company more than a decade ago, while the one he joined next has never had any contracts with Libya. As for the company he joined last year? SeaEnergy are into offshore windfarms and conduct no business with Libya whatsoever. All of which may explain why the Scottish Government did not see fit to “disclose this relationship” since to call it tenuous would be charitable.
Still it let Ms Goldie get in on the act again: “If any part of the Scottish Government has any connections to Libyan businesses then they need to come clean. The SNP Scottish Government need to be open and transparent once and for all and stop this constant drip drip of information which only serves to undermine Scotland and the UK.”
If she lends her name to anything further that is as tenuous as this, then the only thing dripping away will be Ms Goldie’s credibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)