[This is the headline over a short report (which does not seem to feature on the newspaper's website) in today's Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
A terrorist who many believe carried out the Lockerbie bombing has been freed from jail in Sweden.
Mohammed Abu Talb ... was released less than three weeks after Addelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the atrocity, was released from prison in Scotland.
Talb has served 20 years of a life term in his adopted country for a series of bombings in Amsterdam and Copenhagen in 1985, which killed one and injured dozens.
The Palestinian terrorist is thought to have had the backing, finance, equipment and contacts to have downed the Pan Am jet in 1988.
As he was a key witness in the trial of Megrahi, the Crown Office says Talb has immunity from prosecution.
[If the Crown Office did indeed say this, it is -- once again -- in error as to the law of Scotland. A Crown witness gains immunity from prosecution only if he is called as an accomplice to give evidence against those involved with him in the crime charged. Talb was not called by the Crown in this capacity. He had been named by the two Libyan accused as the person who, acting for a Palestinian group, was really responsible for the destruction of Pan Am 103. The Crown called him to obtain a denial of this. He was not called as an accomplice of the Libyans.
The law on the subject of the extent and limits of the immunity from prosecution of Crown witnesses is clearly set out in the 5-judge case of O'Neill v Wilson 1983 SCCR 265.]
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Saturday, 17 October 2009
First Minister on release decision
Here is what the First Minister, Alex Salmond, had to say today about the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi in his keynote speech at the SNP annual conference in Inverness. The full speech can be read here.
"I am told that our Labour/Tory/Liberal opponents cannot understand why we are more popular now than when we were elected.
"It is simple. People like the record of action of an SNP government compared to the wasted years of a peely wally executive
"As a party and as a government, we will stick firm to our principles.
"And without fear or favour, we will take the big decisions. And delegates that is exactly what Kenny MacAskill has done.
"I was delighted but not surprised when statesmen like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela welcomed the decision to release Mr Al Megrahi.
"Delegates, Kenny MacAskill made the right decision for the right reasons. He showed that there is a place for compassion in the administration of justice. That even in the face of the most terrible atrocity, the most severe provocation, we can put mercy before retribution.
"We all recognise the suffering of the families of the victims. What they have experienced no family, no person, should ever endure.
"But the evil of terrorism thrives in the darkness of fear and shrinks from the light of compassion.
"It is right that Mr Al Megrahi was tried and convicted for his crimes, but it is also right that he has been sent home to die.
"Last week Arun Gandhi came to see me - the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi.
"He seeks with our Scottish churches to found a reconciliation centre in one of our great universities.
"One of the things that he told me is that his grandfather's philosophy is much misunderstood.
"His resistance was not passive but active.
"His dedication to non violence a strength not a weakness.
"Sometimes someone has to break the cycle of retribution with an act of compassion.
"That is what Kenny MacAskill did and we should be proud of him for doing it."
"I am told that our Labour/Tory/Liberal opponents cannot understand why we are more popular now than when we were elected.
"It is simple. People like the record of action of an SNP government compared to the wasted years of a peely wally executive
"As a party and as a government, we will stick firm to our principles.
"And without fear or favour, we will take the big decisions. And delegates that is exactly what Kenny MacAskill has done.
"I was delighted but not surprised when statesmen like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela welcomed the decision to release Mr Al Megrahi.
"Delegates, Kenny MacAskill made the right decision for the right reasons. He showed that there is a place for compassion in the administration of justice. That even in the face of the most terrible atrocity, the most severe provocation, we can put mercy before retribution.
"We all recognise the suffering of the families of the victims. What they have experienced no family, no person, should ever endure.
"But the evil of terrorism thrives in the darkness of fear and shrinks from the light of compassion.
"It is right that Mr Al Megrahi was tried and convicted for his crimes, but it is also right that he has been sent home to die.
"Last week Arun Gandhi came to see me - the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi.
"He seeks with our Scottish churches to found a reconciliation centre in one of our great universities.
"One of the things that he told me is that his grandfather's philosophy is much misunderstood.
"His resistance was not passive but active.
"His dedication to non violence a strength not a weakness.
"Sometimes someone has to break the cycle of retribution with an act of compassion.
"That is what Kenny MacAskill did and we should be proud of him for doing it."
Lockerbie families' fury at MacAskill's 'taunts'
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman, a virulently anti-SNP newspaper. It reads in part:]
Kenny MacAskill was last night criticised by relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, after using his decision to release the bomber to taunt his political opponents.
In his keynote address to the SNP conference in Inverness, Scotland's justice secretary received two standing ovations from the party faithful as he said that to act without mercy towards Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was to "debase the beliefs which we seek to uphold". He also mocked Labour MPs and MSPs who, he claimed, had told him they supported his decision in private, only to oppose it in public.
But Mr MacAskill's attack appeared to have backfired last night as relatives in the United States of those who died in the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in December 1988 said they were "surprised" by the sight of the justice secretary being applauded at the conference.
Frank Duggan, of the families group Victims of Flight 103, said: "I don't know what his political future will be, but the name 'MacAskill' will go down in history for his role in a miscarriage of justice." (...)
The claim that Labour MPs and MSPs had privately backed Mr MacAskill was rebutted by the party last night. [RB: The claim was not, of course, rebutted; it was denied, which is quite a different thing.] However, at least one Labour MSP contacted by The Scotsman said there had been doubts expressed in private meetings before the parliamentary debate about the party's opposition to the decision.
The source said that there were only one or two MSPs who had expressed doubts about their opposition, before agreeing to swing behind their own leader.
[It is perhaps worth noting (a) that there is no mention in the article of views of the UK relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103; (b) that Frank Duggan, though the President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc, is not himself a relative; and (c) that the readers' comments that follow the article are overwhelmingly critical of its tone and content and supportive of the release decision.]
Kenny MacAskill was last night criticised by relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, after using his decision to release the bomber to taunt his political opponents.
In his keynote address to the SNP conference in Inverness, Scotland's justice secretary received two standing ovations from the party faithful as he said that to act without mercy towards Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was to "debase the beliefs which we seek to uphold". He also mocked Labour MPs and MSPs who, he claimed, had told him they supported his decision in private, only to oppose it in public.
But Mr MacAskill's attack appeared to have backfired last night as relatives in the United States of those who died in the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in December 1988 said they were "surprised" by the sight of the justice secretary being applauded at the conference.
Frank Duggan, of the families group Victims of Flight 103, said: "I don't know what his political future will be, but the name 'MacAskill' will go down in history for his role in a miscarriage of justice." (...)
The claim that Labour MPs and MSPs had privately backed Mr MacAskill was rebutted by the party last night. [RB: The claim was not, of course, rebutted; it was denied, which is quite a different thing.] However, at least one Labour MSP contacted by The Scotsman said there had been doubts expressed in private meetings before the parliamentary debate about the party's opposition to the decision.
The source said that there were only one or two MSPs who had expressed doubts about their opposition, before agreeing to swing behind their own leader.
[It is perhaps worth noting (a) that there is no mention in the article of views of the UK relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103; (b) that Frank Duggan, though the President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc, is not himself a relative; and (c) that the readers' comments that follow the article are overwhelmingly critical of its tone and content and supportive of the release decision.]
Birnberg on "The framing of al-Megrahi"
[The following letter from Benedict Birnberg appears in the current issue of The London Review of Books.]
As a partner of Gareth Peirce until my retirement may I add a sequel to her penetrating analysis of the al-Megrahi case (LRB, 24 Sepember). First, to point out that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) after an investigation lasting over three years referred his conviction to the Scottish court of appeal in June 2007; its statement of referral extended to more than 800 pages with 13 volumes of appendices. It is that appeal which, as Gareth Peirce says, al-Megrahi abandoned before his release and repatriation to Libya, thus denying the court the opportunity to consider the case, even though the SCCRC stated in its press release: ‘based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court . . . the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.’ Why did al-Megrahi withdraw his appeal? Was it because he was put under pressure to secure his release on compassionate grounds? Or was it voluntarily done because he lacked confidence in the impartiality of the court? Whatever the truth may be, the onus now rests on the Scottish government to establish a public judicial inquiry, so that the case so painstakingly prepared by the SCCRC does not go by default.
Second, to add to the suspicions Peirce’s article exposes, it needs to be said that the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision has unleashed a hysterical torrent of vilification, not least in the US where many of the relatives of the Lockerbie victims are convinced of al-Megrahi’s guilt. We have witnessed a campaign of denigration on which even Obama, Hillary Clinton and the late Edward Kennedy have bestowed their benediction. On this side of the Atlantic too the irrational commentators abound. The overwhelming weight of media comment has been hostile to al-Megrahi. On 3 September the Guardian carried a long article by Malcolm Rifkind, the former foreign secretary and a prominent Scottish lawyer, headed ‘Megrahi’s return has been a sorry, cocked-up conspiracy’: it failed even to mention the SCCRC reference. Even pillars of the human rights establishment, such as Geoffrey Robertson, have shouted themselves hoarse: ‘We should be ashamed that this has happened’ (Guardian, 22 August) and ‘Megrahi should never have been freed: the result is a triumph for state terrorism and a worldwide boost for the death penalty’ (Independent, 2 September).
Yet, when al-Megrahi releases part of the SCCRC case on the internet, his declared aim being to clear his name and ostensibly to prove his innocence, pat comes the Scottish lord advocate (Scotland’s chief prosecutor) joining relatives of the victims convinced of his guilt to denounce him for his ‘media campaign’. Meanwhile pleas from those who, like Dr Jim Swire, believe justice has not been done and who, for the sake of the memory of the victims as much as al-Megrahi, wish there to be a genuine and far-reaching inquiry, fall on deaf ears.
As a partner of Gareth Peirce until my retirement may I add a sequel to her penetrating analysis of the al-Megrahi case (LRB, 24 Sepember). First, to point out that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) after an investigation lasting over three years referred his conviction to the Scottish court of appeal in June 2007; its statement of referral extended to more than 800 pages with 13 volumes of appendices. It is that appeal which, as Gareth Peirce says, al-Megrahi abandoned before his release and repatriation to Libya, thus denying the court the opportunity to consider the case, even though the SCCRC stated in its press release: ‘based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court . . . the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.’ Why did al-Megrahi withdraw his appeal? Was it because he was put under pressure to secure his release on compassionate grounds? Or was it voluntarily done because he lacked confidence in the impartiality of the court? Whatever the truth may be, the onus now rests on the Scottish government to establish a public judicial inquiry, so that the case so painstakingly prepared by the SCCRC does not go by default.
Second, to add to the suspicions Peirce’s article exposes, it needs to be said that the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision has unleashed a hysterical torrent of vilification, not least in the US where many of the relatives of the Lockerbie victims are convinced of al-Megrahi’s guilt. We have witnessed a campaign of denigration on which even Obama, Hillary Clinton and the late Edward Kennedy have bestowed their benediction. On this side of the Atlantic too the irrational commentators abound. The overwhelming weight of media comment has been hostile to al-Megrahi. On 3 September the Guardian carried a long article by Malcolm Rifkind, the former foreign secretary and a prominent Scottish lawyer, headed ‘Megrahi’s return has been a sorry, cocked-up conspiracy’: it failed even to mention the SCCRC reference. Even pillars of the human rights establishment, such as Geoffrey Robertson, have shouted themselves hoarse: ‘We should be ashamed that this has happened’ (Guardian, 22 August) and ‘Megrahi should never have been freed: the result is a triumph for state terrorism and a worldwide boost for the death penalty’ (Independent, 2 September).
Yet, when al-Megrahi releases part of the SCCRC case on the internet, his declared aim being to clear his name and ostensibly to prove his innocence, pat comes the Scottish lord advocate (Scotland’s chief prosecutor) joining relatives of the victims convinced of his guilt to denounce him for his ‘media campaign’. Meanwhile pleas from those who, like Dr Jim Swire, believe justice has not been done and who, for the sake of the memory of the victims as much as al-Megrahi, wish there to be a genuine and far-reaching inquiry, fall on deaf ears.
Friday, 16 October 2009
More from Private Eye
Another long article on Lockerbie appears in the current issue of Private Eye. It is entitled "The $3m Questions" and ends with the sentence "With that [the identification evidence from Tony Gauci] also now totally discredited by the release of material unearthed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, what is there left upon which anyone can justify still labelling Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber?" The full article can be read here.
'Support' over Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The SNP minister who released the Lockerbie bomber has claimed to have since won support for the decision from unnamed Labour MPs and MSPs.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill freed terminally-ill Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi in August, on compassionate grounds.
Addressing the SNP conference in Inverness, Mr MacAskill insisted the decision was the right one.
His arrival in the conference hall was greeted by a standing ovation.
Delegates also gave Mr MacAskill a second ovation at the end of his 17-minute speech.
Megrahi, the only person ever convicted over the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, had been serving his sentence in a Scottish jail before his release.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has refused to say whether he agreed with the decision because justice was devolved to Holyrood, although Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray opposed it. [RB: The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, stated in the House of Commons on Monday that the UK Government supported the decision to release Mr Megrahi. I wonder why the BBC did not think it necessary to point this out?]
Mr MacAskill did not name his supporters, but told the conference: "Many Labour MPs and MSPs have since told me that they agreed with my decision, but none of them have spoken out."
He said only the Labour MSP and former minister Malcolm Chisholm had shown the "courage of his convictions" by openly supporting the decision.
He went on: "Scotland's laws and Scottish values dictate that justice must be done but that mercy must be available.
"To act otherwise would be to discard the values by which we seek to live and debase the beliefs which we seek to uphold.
"I said in parliament that it was my decision and my decision alone. It was not based on political, economic or diplomatic grounds.
"It was the right way, for the right reasons and I believe it was the right decision."
[An article on the subject by Alan Cochrane on the website of The Daily Telegraph contains the following:]
Always a popular front bencher, Mr MacAskill was received with such rapture yesterday as much for having been in the international firing line for so long over this issue as for the decision itself.
Although there is no sign that the SNP activists disagreed with the decision to release the bomber, what they appear to be most proud of is that they reckon that Mr MacAskill’s actions showed Scotland was a grown-up country, capable of handling such complex issues.
But didn’t those who backed him so enthusiastically yesterday feel just the teeniest bit queasy at giving such a rousing reception to the minister responsible for freeing a mass murderer? How did it look to the relatives of the victims, for instance? Did any of those applauding their minister consider that?
The party’s strategists were prepared for Mr MacAskill to receive a warm welcome and are confident that it will do them no harm.
Megrahi’s release, although hugely controversial on the international arena, has not damaged the SNP cause at all with the Scottish voter. Indeed, recent opinion polls suggest that their lead over Labour is hardening, even in relation to Westminster elections.
The SNP minister who released the Lockerbie bomber has claimed to have since won support for the decision from unnamed Labour MPs and MSPs.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill freed terminally-ill Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi in August, on compassionate grounds.
Addressing the SNP conference in Inverness, Mr MacAskill insisted the decision was the right one.
His arrival in the conference hall was greeted by a standing ovation.
Delegates also gave Mr MacAskill a second ovation at the end of his 17-minute speech.
Megrahi, the only person ever convicted over the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, had been serving his sentence in a Scottish jail before his release.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has refused to say whether he agreed with the decision because justice was devolved to Holyrood, although Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray opposed it. [RB: The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, stated in the House of Commons on Monday that the UK Government supported the decision to release Mr Megrahi. I wonder why the BBC did not think it necessary to point this out?]
Mr MacAskill did not name his supporters, but told the conference: "Many Labour MPs and MSPs have since told me that they agreed with my decision, but none of them have spoken out."
He said only the Labour MSP and former minister Malcolm Chisholm had shown the "courage of his convictions" by openly supporting the decision.
He went on: "Scotland's laws and Scottish values dictate that justice must be done but that mercy must be available.
"To act otherwise would be to discard the values by which we seek to live and debase the beliefs which we seek to uphold.
"I said in parliament that it was my decision and my decision alone. It was not based on political, economic or diplomatic grounds.
"It was the right way, for the right reasons and I believe it was the right decision."
[An article on the subject by Alan Cochrane on the website of The Daily Telegraph contains the following:]
Always a popular front bencher, Mr MacAskill was received with such rapture yesterday as much for having been in the international firing line for so long over this issue as for the decision itself.
Although there is no sign that the SNP activists disagreed with the decision to release the bomber, what they appear to be most proud of is that they reckon that Mr MacAskill’s actions showed Scotland was a grown-up country, capable of handling such complex issues.
But didn’t those who backed him so enthusiastically yesterday feel just the teeniest bit queasy at giving such a rousing reception to the minister responsible for freeing a mass murderer? How did it look to the relatives of the victims, for instance? Did any of those applauding their minister consider that?
The party’s strategists were prepared for Mr MacAskill to receive a warm welcome and are confident that it will do them no harm.
Megrahi’s release, although hugely controversial on the international arena, has not damaged the SNP cause at all with the Scottish voter. Indeed, recent opinion polls suggest that their lead over Labour is hardening, even in relation to Westminster elections.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Colin Boyd's bloomer
It is sad (but not entirely surprising) to see the former Lord Advocate, Lord Boyd of Duncansby QC, in the House of Lords repeating the assertion that "... no fewer than eight judges of the High Court of Justiciary have similarly concluded on the evidence that he [Abdelbaset Megrahi] was guilty of the crimes".
The trial court at Zeist consisted of three (voting) judges. The appeal court at Zeist consisted of five. As has frequently been been pointed out on this blog, the five judges in Megrahi's first appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The factual position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
Perhaps Lord Boyd would wish to apologise to the House for his inaccuracy?
The trial court at Zeist consisted of three (voting) judges. The appeal court at Zeist consisted of five. As has frequently been been pointed out on this blog, the five judges in Megrahi's first appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The factual position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
Perhaps Lord Boyd would wish to apologise to the House for his inaccuracy?
“Farcical scenes” as Baroness Kinnock axed from Lords post immediately after pledging to investigate Megrahi pressure
[This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows.]
Labour Peer Baroness Kinnock has been unexpectedly replaced in her post as Europe minister, only hours after pledging to investigate whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was pressured into dropping his ongoing appeal against conviction before being transferred to Libya.
The Scottish Government had denied any pressure had been applied, but the coincidental timing of the dropping of the appeal has been widely perceived as being linked to Megrahi’s transfer.
In a debate in the House of Lords on Monday Lord Lester of Herne Hill said he was “very concerned about the circumstances in which Megrahi was persuaded to drop his appeal and to go and die in Libya.”
“I saw him in Barlinnie myself. I would like to know, and I would like the Government to find out whether, when he was visited in prison, it was made clear to him that if he dropped his appeal he would be allowed to go and die in Libya, so that there would then be no appeal and the relatives—Dr Swire and the others—would never know the truth,” he said.
“I would therefore like an assurance that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure put upon him. The Government may not know the answer, but they should find out. Was any pressure put on Megrahi that he would be sent to die in Libya only if he dropped the appeal?”
Baroness Kinnock said in response that she was “not aware of what the answer might be,” but would ask for advice and respond.
Within hours, Kinnock had been replaced amid what the Daily Mail described as “farcical scenes” as her replacement, junior minister Chris Bryant “broke with protocol and announced his new role on the Twitter website before Downing Street or the Foreign Office had a chance to issue a statement.”
The Firm has asked the Prime Minister’s office to confirm whether Kinnock’s sacking is connected to responses to questions raised about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. So far Baroness Kinnock’s removal has been dismissed as “housekeeping” by the Prime Minister’s spokesman.
[The Firm's e-mailed query to 10 Downing Street reads:]
The Firm is reporting on yesterday's dismissal of Baroness Kinnock from her post as Europe minister in the Lords. The dismissal came only hours after she replied to a question raised by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which she undertook to respond to.
Lord Lester asked if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had been pressured to drop his appeal against conviction in order to be assured of his return home to Libya to die.
Could the Prime Minister confirm if Baroness Kinnock's dismissal is connected to her pledge to answer this question?
Will her successor Chris Bryant return to the Lords to provide an answer to the question?
[Here is The Firm's report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's answer to its query.]
FCO says no link between Kinnock "reallocation" and Megrahi answers
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office have moved to refute any link between the dismissal of Baroness Kinnock from her European portfolio in the House of Lords on Monday, and her pledge the same day to investigate whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was pressured into dropping his ongoing appeal against conviction before being transferred to Libya.
The FCO told the Firm "the suggestion that Baroness Kinnock has been dismissed or demoted is patent nonsense."
“Ministerial portfolios in the Foreign Office have been reallocated, following Lord Malloch Brown's departure at the beginning of the summer.”
The Firm pressed the FCO to explain why in that case no announcement had been made at the beginning of the summer. An FCO press officer said that the announcement had only been made orally “at the Lobby” on Monday morning, and no written statement announcing Baroness Kinnock’s “reallocation” had been produced or distributed to the media.
They confirmed that Kinnock remains responsible for all FCO business in the Lords and will respond to Lord Lester's question “in the normal way“. Lord Lester had asked for an assurance that no pressure had been put upon Megrahi that he would be sent to die in Libya only if he dropped his appeal.
The Press Secretary to the Foreign Secretary Daid Milliband told The Firm that neither the timing nor the contents of the change in Kinnock’s role, described as ”internal housekeeping“ was “in any way related to anything Baroness Kinnock said in the Lords on Monday afternoon.”
“The change in Minister for Europe took place and was announced before the comments you report in the Lords. Any suggestion to the contrary is factually untrue," he added.
Labour Peer Baroness Kinnock has been unexpectedly replaced in her post as Europe minister, only hours after pledging to investigate whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was pressured into dropping his ongoing appeal against conviction before being transferred to Libya.
The Scottish Government had denied any pressure had been applied, but the coincidental timing of the dropping of the appeal has been widely perceived as being linked to Megrahi’s transfer.
In a debate in the House of Lords on Monday Lord Lester of Herne Hill said he was “very concerned about the circumstances in which Megrahi was persuaded to drop his appeal and to go and die in Libya.”
“I saw him in Barlinnie myself. I would like to know, and I would like the Government to find out whether, when he was visited in prison, it was made clear to him that if he dropped his appeal he would be allowed to go and die in Libya, so that there would then be no appeal and the relatives—Dr Swire and the others—would never know the truth,” he said.
“I would therefore like an assurance that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure put upon him. The Government may not know the answer, but they should find out. Was any pressure put on Megrahi that he would be sent to die in Libya only if he dropped the appeal?”
Baroness Kinnock said in response that she was “not aware of what the answer might be,” but would ask for advice and respond.
Within hours, Kinnock had been replaced amid what the Daily Mail described as “farcical scenes” as her replacement, junior minister Chris Bryant “broke with protocol and announced his new role on the Twitter website before Downing Street or the Foreign Office had a chance to issue a statement.”
The Firm has asked the Prime Minister’s office to confirm whether Kinnock’s sacking is connected to responses to questions raised about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. So far Baroness Kinnock’s removal has been dismissed as “housekeeping” by the Prime Minister’s spokesman.
[The Firm's e-mailed query to 10 Downing Street reads:]
The Firm is reporting on yesterday's dismissal of Baroness Kinnock from her post as Europe minister in the Lords. The dismissal came only hours after she replied to a question raised by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which she undertook to respond to.
Lord Lester asked if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had been pressured to drop his appeal against conviction in order to be assured of his return home to Libya to die.
Could the Prime Minister confirm if Baroness Kinnock's dismissal is connected to her pledge to answer this question?
Will her successor Chris Bryant return to the Lords to provide an answer to the question?
[Here is The Firm's report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's answer to its query.]
FCO says no link between Kinnock "reallocation" and Megrahi answers
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office have moved to refute any link between the dismissal of Baroness Kinnock from her European portfolio in the House of Lords on Monday, and her pledge the same day to investigate whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was pressured into dropping his ongoing appeal against conviction before being transferred to Libya.
The FCO told the Firm "the suggestion that Baroness Kinnock has been dismissed or demoted is patent nonsense."
“Ministerial portfolios in the Foreign Office have been reallocated, following Lord Malloch Brown's departure at the beginning of the summer.”
The Firm pressed the FCO to explain why in that case no announcement had been made at the beginning of the summer. An FCO press officer said that the announcement had only been made orally “at the Lobby” on Monday morning, and no written statement announcing Baroness Kinnock’s “reallocation” had been produced or distributed to the media.
They confirmed that Kinnock remains responsible for all FCO business in the Lords and will respond to Lord Lester's question “in the normal way“. Lord Lester had asked for an assurance that no pressure had been put upon Megrahi that he would be sent to die in Libya only if he dropped his appeal.
The Press Secretary to the Foreign Secretary Daid Milliband told The Firm that neither the timing nor the contents of the change in Kinnock’s role, described as ”internal housekeeping“ was “in any way related to anything Baroness Kinnock said in the Lords on Monday afternoon.”
“The change in Minister for Europe took place and was announced before the comments you report in the Lords. Any suggestion to the contrary is factually untrue," he added.
Megrahi release and the House of Commons
The full text of Foreign Secretary David Miliband's statement in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 October, on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi can be read here, along with the questions and answers that followed it. Not nearly as interesting as the exchanges in the Lords, in my view.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Megrahi release and the House of Lords
Two short debates were held yesterday in the House of Lords on matters related to the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
The first arose out of a question asked by Lord Pannick QC: "To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they did not make representations to the Scottish Secretary for Justice on whether Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi should be released from prison on compassionate grounds." The answer and the ensuing interchanges can be read here. One exchange reads as follows:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should declare a professional interest as the former co-counsel for Mr al-Megrahi in his unsuccessful application to the European Court of Human Rights. In the interests of justice and for the sake of the Lockerbie families, would the Government now seek to persuade the Scottish Executive to set up a full judicial inquiry into the matters raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the UN observer, Professor Köchler, about a possible miscarriage of justice and abuses in the investigation, prosecution and trial?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, as yet the British Government have made no decisions on these matters. The Lockerbie investigation took place and the result was that al-Megrahi was imprisoned in Scotland under that legal system. That remains the case and nothing can change in terms of what is possible from the investigation. The Libyans paid substantial compensation to the Lockerbie victims, but we accept that that is no justification.
The second debate arose out of the repetition in the Lords of the statement that had earlier been made in the Commons by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. The statement and the debate to which it gave rise can be read here. One exchange reads as follows:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as I mentioned at Questions, I disclose my professional interest in having acted as co-counsel in the claim by Mr Megrahi to the European Court of Human Rights, which got nowhere. Since then I have had no professional interest in the case. However, in the work that I did on it, which lasted several weeks, I went through the whole of the transcripts and read the appellate judgment, and I have to say that I came to the conclusion, entirely objectively and working with Scottish counsel, that there had been a denial of justice and that Mr Megrahi had not been proved to be guilty. When I then read the summary of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report, which my noble friend referred to just now, and realised that it had come to the same conclusion, I was very disturbed.
I shall deal with a couple of points in addition to those that have been made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. First, will the Government please give an assurance that they will consent to the publication of the whole report? The commission does not have the power to do so itself. If the Scottish Executive or Scottish Parliament ask them to, will the Government consent to the publication of all the report so that we can see what its grounds are for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice?
Secondly, I am very concerned about the circumstances in which Megrahi was persuaded to drop his appeal and to go and die in Libya. I saw him in Barlinnie myself. I would like to know, and I would like the Government to find out whether, when he was visited in prison, it was made clear to him that if he dropped his appeal he would be allowed to go and die in Libya, so that there would then be no appeal and the relatives—Dr Swire and the others—would never know the truth. That is very important to them, and they have written to me about it. I would therefore like an assurance that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure put upon him. The Government may not know the answer, but they should find out. Was any pressure put on Megrahi that he would be sent to die in Libya only if he dropped the appeal?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: On the last point, I am not aware of what the answer might be. We will ask for some advice on whether anyone has been asking those questions and, if so, I will respond to the question that the noble Lord raises.
On the issue of an independent inquiry, I have to keep repeating that is not really for us to say whether that will happen. I am, however, aware that the Scottish Parliament will soon begin an inquiry into the decisions that were taken, and I presume that that would be the best vehicle for any reflection that the Scottish authorities may choose to make on exactly what happened. I am sorry; I have forgotten the other question.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I was asking whether the Government would consent to the publication of the whole report if the Scottish Parliament or Executive asked them to.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: Again, that is an issue for the Scottish authorities, but we can ask whether there is a likelihood that the report will be given to those parties who are interested, such as someone, like the noble Lord, who was involved in the commission. It goes back to whether it is necessary to have an independent inquiry. The details of the re-engagement with Libya are there, and we will need to see. The Justice Secretary will appear before the Justice Committee on 20 October, so I think that these issues will become clearer as time goes on.
The first arose out of a question asked by Lord Pannick QC: "To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they did not make representations to the Scottish Secretary for Justice on whether Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi should be released from prison on compassionate grounds." The answer and the ensuing interchanges can be read here. One exchange reads as follows:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should declare a professional interest as the former co-counsel for Mr al-Megrahi in his unsuccessful application to the European Court of Human Rights. In the interests of justice and for the sake of the Lockerbie families, would the Government now seek to persuade the Scottish Executive to set up a full judicial inquiry into the matters raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the UN observer, Professor Köchler, about a possible miscarriage of justice and abuses in the investigation, prosecution and trial?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, as yet the British Government have made no decisions on these matters. The Lockerbie investigation took place and the result was that al-Megrahi was imprisoned in Scotland under that legal system. That remains the case and nothing can change in terms of what is possible from the investigation. The Libyans paid substantial compensation to the Lockerbie victims, but we accept that that is no justification.
The second debate arose out of the repetition in the Lords of the statement that had earlier been made in the Commons by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. The statement and the debate to which it gave rise can be read here. One exchange reads as follows:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as I mentioned at Questions, I disclose my professional interest in having acted as co-counsel in the claim by Mr Megrahi to the European Court of Human Rights, which got nowhere. Since then I have had no professional interest in the case. However, in the work that I did on it, which lasted several weeks, I went through the whole of the transcripts and read the appellate judgment, and I have to say that I came to the conclusion, entirely objectively and working with Scottish counsel, that there had been a denial of justice and that Mr Megrahi had not been proved to be guilty. When I then read the summary of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report, which my noble friend referred to just now, and realised that it had come to the same conclusion, I was very disturbed.
I shall deal with a couple of points in addition to those that have been made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. First, will the Government please give an assurance that they will consent to the publication of the whole report? The commission does not have the power to do so itself. If the Scottish Executive or Scottish Parliament ask them to, will the Government consent to the publication of all the report so that we can see what its grounds are for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice?
Secondly, I am very concerned about the circumstances in which Megrahi was persuaded to drop his appeal and to go and die in Libya. I saw him in Barlinnie myself. I would like to know, and I would like the Government to find out whether, when he was visited in prison, it was made clear to him that if he dropped his appeal he would be allowed to go and die in Libya, so that there would then be no appeal and the relatives—Dr Swire and the others—would never know the truth. That is very important to them, and they have written to me about it. I would therefore like an assurance that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure put upon him. The Government may not know the answer, but they should find out. Was any pressure put on Megrahi that he would be sent to die in Libya only if he dropped the appeal?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: On the last point, I am not aware of what the answer might be. We will ask for some advice on whether anyone has been asking those questions and, if so, I will respond to the question that the noble Lord raises.
On the issue of an independent inquiry, I have to keep repeating that is not really for us to say whether that will happen. I am, however, aware that the Scottish Parliament will soon begin an inquiry into the decisions that were taken, and I presume that that would be the best vehicle for any reflection that the Scottish authorities may choose to make on exactly what happened. I am sorry; I have forgotten the other question.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I was asking whether the Government would consent to the publication of the whole report if the Scottish Parliament or Executive asked them to.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: Again, that is an issue for the Scottish authorities, but we can ask whether there is a likelihood that the report will be given to those parties who are interested, such as someone, like the noble Lord, who was involved in the commission. It goes back to whether it is necessary to have an independent inquiry. The details of the re-engagement with Libya are there, and we will need to see. The Justice Secretary will appear before the Justice Committee on 20 October, so I think that these issues will become clearer as time goes on.
Lockerbie bomber’s release deplored
[This is the headline over the report in today's Gulf Times on the Doha Debate on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
The motion ‘This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya,’ was carried with 53% votes at the first episode of the sixth series of Qatar Foundation’s Doha Debates last night.
The debate, which saw both sides raising solid arguments and some highly relevant questions from the audience, was the first public forum in the Arab world to discuss the bitterly-contested topic. (...)
Arguing for the motion was British MP and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya, Daniel Kawczynski and Libyan writer, political commentator and frequent critic of the Libyan regime, Guma El-Gamaty, a resident of the UK for more than three decades.
On the opposing side was Dr Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora was a passenger on the Pan Am flight. Since her death, he has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives.
He was joined by Mustafa Fetouri, a Libyan academic and political commentator who writes for a variety of Arab and English language newspapers and currently MBA Programme Director at The Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli.
Kawczynski, the first speaker, set the tone for the evening by stating that the Pan Am bombing “was the worst atrocity imaginable” and he did not want al-Megrahi’s release.
He tied the issue to the ‘non-co-operation’ of the Libyan regime in the investigation of the killing of the young British police constable Yvonne Fletcher, shot outside the Libyan embassy 25 years ago.
“Gaddafi (Libyan president) refuses to see me,” said Kawczynski who alleged that Fletcher was shot by a Libyan diplomat. The Tory MP had accompanied the Fletcher family last month when they met British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Speaking next, Dr Fetouri remarked that al-Megrahi ought to have been released a long time ago and cited the “growing public opinion” that the convict was “actually framed.”
“Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am incident and paid the compensation to get out of the international sanctions, and 99.9% of Libyans believe that Libya as a country was not responsible for the bombing,” he maintained.
El-Gamaty, who alleged that al-Megrahi’s release was the result of a British-Libyan deal to give oil and gas exploration rights in Libya to British Petroleum, believed that the convict should have tried to clear his name if he were innocent as the Scottish court had offered to hear his case again.
Swire, whose main message to the debate audience was ‘we need to stop killing each other,’ declared that “the trial convinced me al-Megrahi was not involved in this” and “I am delighted by his release.”
“I have met Gaddafi thrice, whereas all the British Prime Ministers except Thatcher refused to meet me and the present Prime Minister Gordon Brown has not replied to my letter,” he said.
El-Gamaty argued that al-Megrahi, a very junior Libyan intelligence officer “has been used and is a victim whereas there are countries involved in this.”
Kawczynski, who suggested that al-Megrahi should have been released in exchange for the killer of Fletcher, also said the decision to free him had no sanction from the British Parliament.
[The report in The Peninsula can be read here.]
The motion ‘This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya,’ was carried with 53% votes at the first episode of the sixth series of Qatar Foundation’s Doha Debates last night.
The debate, which saw both sides raising solid arguments and some highly relevant questions from the audience, was the first public forum in the Arab world to discuss the bitterly-contested topic. (...)
Arguing for the motion was British MP and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya, Daniel Kawczynski and Libyan writer, political commentator and frequent critic of the Libyan regime, Guma El-Gamaty, a resident of the UK for more than three decades.
On the opposing side was Dr Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora was a passenger on the Pan Am flight. Since her death, he has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives.
He was joined by Mustafa Fetouri, a Libyan academic and political commentator who writes for a variety of Arab and English language newspapers and currently MBA Programme Director at The Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli.
Kawczynski, the first speaker, set the tone for the evening by stating that the Pan Am bombing “was the worst atrocity imaginable” and he did not want al-Megrahi’s release.
He tied the issue to the ‘non-co-operation’ of the Libyan regime in the investigation of the killing of the young British police constable Yvonne Fletcher, shot outside the Libyan embassy 25 years ago.
“Gaddafi (Libyan president) refuses to see me,” said Kawczynski who alleged that Fletcher was shot by a Libyan diplomat. The Tory MP had accompanied the Fletcher family last month when they met British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Speaking next, Dr Fetouri remarked that al-Megrahi ought to have been released a long time ago and cited the “growing public opinion” that the convict was “actually framed.”
“Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am incident and paid the compensation to get out of the international sanctions, and 99.9% of Libyans believe that Libya as a country was not responsible for the bombing,” he maintained.
El-Gamaty, who alleged that al-Megrahi’s release was the result of a British-Libyan deal to give oil and gas exploration rights in Libya to British Petroleum, believed that the convict should have tried to clear his name if he were innocent as the Scottish court had offered to hear his case again.
Swire, whose main message to the debate audience was ‘we need to stop killing each other,’ declared that “the trial convinced me al-Megrahi was not involved in this” and “I am delighted by his release.”
“I have met Gaddafi thrice, whereas all the British Prime Ministers except Thatcher refused to meet me and the present Prime Minister Gordon Brown has not replied to my letter,” he said.
El-Gamaty argued that al-Megrahi, a very junior Libyan intelligence officer “has been used and is a victim whereas there are countries involved in this.”
Kawczynski, who suggested that al-Megrahi should have been released in exchange for the killer of Fletcher, also said the decision to free him had no sanction from the British Parliament.
[The report in The Peninsula can be read here.]
Lockerbie bombing: Government backed Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Guardian on the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday in the UK Parliament. The following are excerpts. The most important revelation is that contained in the second and third paragraphs, which I have italicised.]
David Miliband has revealed that the UK government supported the decision to free the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing because his death in a Scottish jail would have damaged trade and diplomatic ties to Libya.
The foreign secretary disclosed that Libya and Scottish National party ministers were told in advance that the government agreed "as a matter of policy" that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi should be freed on compassionate grounds because of his terminal cancer.
His remarks, made in a statement on the Megrahi affair to MPs on their first day back after the recess, confirm that the government had formally sanctioned the release by making its views known to both sides.
Miliband insisted that UK ministers had no power or desire to pressurise the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release Megrahi because that was solely a matter for the Scottish legal system.
But he would make "no apology" for protecting business links with Libya, British jobs and the government's efforts to win Libyan help on security and counter-terrorism, including tackling al-Qaida terrorists in north Africa who killed the British tourist Edwin Dwyer in May. (...)
But Miliband's attempts to settle the controversy surrounding Megrahi's release were rebuffed by senior Tories, the Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers, who accused the government of seriously damaging relations with the US and betraying the 270 victims of the atrocity.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the government's handling of the affair had been "characterised by confusion and obfuscation". Gordon Brown's refusal to make a statement on whether he agreed with Megrahi's release for nine days was "deeply regrettable", he said. Even after the prime minister had said he respected the Scottish government's decision, there was further confusion after the children's secretary, Ed Balls, claimed that "no one" wanted Megrahi to be released. (...)
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, repeated his demand for an independent inquiry, and said it was now clear that "trade came before justice".
[The report in The Times by Scottish Political Editor, Angus Macleod, makes much of the gulf between the UK Labour Government's approval of Megrahi's release and the virulent disapproval of it expressed by the Labour Opposition in the Scottish Parliament. The story is headed "Scottish Labour at odds with London over al-Megrahi".]
David Miliband has revealed that the UK government supported the decision to free the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing because his death in a Scottish jail would have damaged trade and diplomatic ties to Libya.
The foreign secretary disclosed that Libya and Scottish National party ministers were told in advance that the government agreed "as a matter of policy" that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi should be freed on compassionate grounds because of his terminal cancer.
His remarks, made in a statement on the Megrahi affair to MPs on their first day back after the recess, confirm that the government had formally sanctioned the release by making its views known to both sides.
Miliband insisted that UK ministers had no power or desire to pressurise the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release Megrahi because that was solely a matter for the Scottish legal system.
But he would make "no apology" for protecting business links with Libya, British jobs and the government's efforts to win Libyan help on security and counter-terrorism, including tackling al-Qaida terrorists in north Africa who killed the British tourist Edwin Dwyer in May. (...)
But Miliband's attempts to settle the controversy surrounding Megrahi's release were rebuffed by senior Tories, the Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers, who accused the government of seriously damaging relations with the US and betraying the 270 victims of the atrocity.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the government's handling of the affair had been "characterised by confusion and obfuscation". Gordon Brown's refusal to make a statement on whether he agreed with Megrahi's release for nine days was "deeply regrettable", he said. Even after the prime minister had said he respected the Scottish government's decision, there was further confusion after the children's secretary, Ed Balls, claimed that "no one" wanted Megrahi to be released. (...)
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, repeated his demand for an independent inquiry, and said it was now clear that "trade came before justice".
[The report in The Times by Scottish Political Editor, Angus Macleod, makes much of the gulf between the UK Labour Government's approval of Megrahi's release and the virulent disapproval of it expressed by the Labour Opposition in the Scottish Parliament. The story is headed "Scottish Labour at odds with London over al-Megrahi".]
Monday, 12 October 2009
Miliband admits Megrahi jail fear
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The UK government thought the national interest would be "damaged" if the Lockerbie bomber had died in prison, the foreign secretary has said.
Libyan Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government in August.
But David Miliband told the Commons he "rejected" claims that any pressure had been applied by the UK government. (...)
Mr Miliband said that, because justice was a devolved matter and therefore dealt with by the Scottish government, the decision had been "for him [Mr MacAskill] to take and for him to take alone".
He added: "The government was clear that any attempt by us to pressure the Scottish Executive would have been wrong."
He said he wanted to address the "unfounded allegation" that Britain had ignored Libya's past support for terrorism or that it had forgotten about IRA victims or the family of murdered police officer Yvonne Fletcher, shot by a gunman inside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984.
The Scottish government, run by the Scottish National Party (SNP), has said the decision to release Megrahi was made on compassionate grounds, as he has terminal cancer.
Mr Miliband told MPs: "Notwithstanding that any decision on release was for Scottish ministers and the Scottish judicial system, the UK government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision.
"Although the decision was not one for the UK government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than Libya.
"Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction we made it clear to them both that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK government and as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody." (...)
Speaking in the Commons, the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson, said the decision had been recommended by parole officers and had not been based "on political considerations".
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Kenny MacAskill took the right decisions for the right reasons, based on the due process of Scots law - including the recommendations of the parole board and prison governor, and the medical evidence.
"The foreign secretary has now made it clear that UK government policy was not in favour of al-Megrahi dying in Scotland.
"The UK Labour position played no role whatever in the justice secretary's decisions to reject prisoner transfer and grant compassionate release."
The UK government thought the national interest would be "damaged" if the Lockerbie bomber had died in prison, the foreign secretary has said.
Libyan Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government in August.
But David Miliband told the Commons he "rejected" claims that any pressure had been applied by the UK government. (...)
Mr Miliband said that, because justice was a devolved matter and therefore dealt with by the Scottish government, the decision had been "for him [Mr MacAskill] to take and for him to take alone".
He added: "The government was clear that any attempt by us to pressure the Scottish Executive would have been wrong."
He said he wanted to address the "unfounded allegation" that Britain had ignored Libya's past support for terrorism or that it had forgotten about IRA victims or the family of murdered police officer Yvonne Fletcher, shot by a gunman inside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984.
The Scottish government, run by the Scottish National Party (SNP), has said the decision to release Megrahi was made on compassionate grounds, as he has terminal cancer.
Mr Miliband told MPs: "Notwithstanding that any decision on release was for Scottish ministers and the Scottish judicial system, the UK government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision.
"Although the decision was not one for the UK government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than Libya.
"Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction we made it clear to them both that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK government and as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody." (...)
Speaking in the Commons, the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson, said the decision had been recommended by parole officers and had not been based "on political considerations".
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Kenny MacAskill took the right decisions for the right reasons, based on the due process of Scots law - including the recommendations of the parole board and prison governor, and the medical evidence.
"The foreign secretary has now made it clear that UK government policy was not in favour of al-Megrahi dying in Scotland.
"The UK Labour position played no role whatever in the justice secretary's decisions to reject prisoner transfer and grant compassionate release."
Doha Debates to discuss Megrahi’s release
The Doha Debates will begin their sixth series today, with a discussion on the bitterly-contested release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, a Libyan national with terminal cancer, was freed in August by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds, provoking an international outcry and condemnation by US President Barack Obama.
Al Megrahi was the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which came down over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
The debate, which takes place at Qatar Foundation Headquarters at 7.30pm, will argue the motion that “This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya”. Debates’ Chairman Tim Sebastian said that most of the comments had so far come from Britain and America.
“It’s time to hear from Arabs themselves about the conflict between justice and compassion. There are moral and practical implications at stake. What message did the release of the bomber send to terrorists around the world, as well as their victims?”
Arguing for the motion is Daniel Kawczynski, British MP and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya.
With him is Guma El-Gamaty, a Libyan writer, political commentator and frequent critic of the Libyan regime. He has been living in the UK for more than 30 years.
The panel opposing the motion includes Jim Swire, whose 23-year old daughter Flora was a passenger on the Pan Am flight. Since her death, he has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives.
He is joined by Mustafa Fetouri, a Libyan academic and political commentator who writes for a variety of Arab and English language newspapers and is currently MBA Programme Director at The Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli.
Besides the BBC World News broadcasts, the Debates can now be followed on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
[From today's edition of The Peninsula, Qatar's largest English language daily newspaper. The article can be read here.]
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, a Libyan national with terminal cancer, was freed in August by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds, provoking an international outcry and condemnation by US President Barack Obama.
Al Megrahi was the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which came down over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
The debate, which takes place at Qatar Foundation Headquarters at 7.30pm, will argue the motion that “This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya”. Debates’ Chairman Tim Sebastian said that most of the comments had so far come from Britain and America.
“It’s time to hear from Arabs themselves about the conflict between justice and compassion. There are moral and practical implications at stake. What message did the release of the bomber send to terrorists around the world, as well as their victims?”
Arguing for the motion is Daniel Kawczynski, British MP and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya.
With him is Guma El-Gamaty, a Libyan writer, political commentator and frequent critic of the Libyan regime. He has been living in the UK for more than 30 years.
The panel opposing the motion includes Jim Swire, whose 23-year old daughter Flora was a passenger on the Pan Am flight. Since her death, he has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives.
He is joined by Mustafa Fetouri, a Libyan academic and political commentator who writes for a variety of Arab and English language newspapers and is currently MBA Programme Director at The Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli.
Besides the BBC World News broadcasts, the Debates can now be followed on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
[From today's edition of The Peninsula, Qatar's largest English language daily newspaper. The article can be read here.]
Sunday, 11 October 2009
Libya must not be held hostage by greed
[This is the heading over a long letter by Joseph M Cachia in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Independent on Sunday. It reads as follows.]
“Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer” – Julian Casablancas
The clamour following the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi had hardly died down when the headlines of the US media barked out: “Terrorist celebrated in Libya”.
What shame and hypocrisy!
Why shouldn’t al-Megrahi be given a hero’s welcome and met with scenes of jubilation, especially by his family and close friends? Wasn’t a hero’s welcome given to Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the other accused and acquitted, equally and rightfully deserving?
Back in 2001, when al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing by a Scottish court, the newspapers were filled with pictures of jubilant relatives of the victims of the 1988 bombing of PanAm 103. Admittedly, they had believed that justice had been meted out, albeit doubtfully.
So, what’s wrong with welcoming home a man whom his countrymen strongly believe to have been unjustly convicted?
What disturbs me most about this matter is the revenge motive. It seems that revenge is a dish best served cold, off the human menu and serving no genuine purpose. The lack of compassion expressed by some shows that they are no better than any terrorist.
I lived in Libya for over three years, so know first hand that most Libyan people are peaceful, hospitable and generous. The spontaneous warm celebration that welcomed this unfortunate man back home does, beyond any doubt, credit to them.
Moreover, not only Libya but also various other competent authorities have always perceived al-Megrahi as innocent.
As he quite rightly said: “I have returned to Tripoli with my UNJUST conviction still in place.” It is extremely shameful for anyone to say that his attempt to challenge his conviction and clear his name is deplorable. What point have we reached? Is it justice to deprive anyone of the chance to prove his innocence?
Although it appears that the US President was not properly informed about the al-Megrahi case, he did not hesitate to condemn Scottish justice for his compassionate release. And what now, Mr President, if Mr al-Megrahi, is finally proved innocent? Perhaps, if the US President cares to give Al-Megrahi’s conviction a second look, reading the book Cover-up of Convenience – The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie, co-authored by investigative journalist Ian Ferguson, would surely prevent him from being so vociferous in his unabashed convictions!
When asked whether Britain would consider reimbursing Libya in the event of Mr al-Megrahi’s exoneration, no one at the Foreign Office was prepared to comment.
What was the reason for the film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie being so fiercely criticised by the US and British governments that subsequently it had to be withdrawn from public viewing?
Truth is everyone’s right and it seems it is still being denied to us.
In a move agreed to by the US and British governments, Libya had offered compensation to the relatives of those killed in the bombing.
In February 2004, the Libyan Prime Minister formally declared that his country was innocent but was forced to pay-up as a “price for peace”. The Libyan government paid the relatives of the Lockerbie victims £803 million in compensation.
The conditions of the deal included the lifting of the United Nations sanctions against Libya, the removal of US sanctions and the removal of Libya from the US list of states “sponsoring terrorism”. Anything goes, as long as it’s paid for! At that time, even the Maltese government had offered support to the Libyan stance. Anything goes as long as it’s paid for!
The only objections to the Libyan initiative came from the French government. Citing the much lower sums offered by Libya to relatives of victims of another aircraft bombing, the French government has demanded a comparable level of compensation for the victims. The victim’s relatives were paid up to $33,000 each by Libya, in contrast to the $10 million each for relatives of the victims of PA 103. Still more avarice – a ceaseless, overwhelming desire for more.
How many of the relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, who recently protested outside the UN building at President Gaddafi’s appearance, were recipients of Libya’s contributions?
Seif Al Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, angered Lockerbie victims’ relatives last year when he said they were “very greedy” and “trading with the blood of their sons and daughters” in their battle for compensation. That’s nothing but the honest truth!
If the release of Mr al-Megrahi was based on greed, as has been implied by various media, it definitely wasn’t on the part of the Libyan government.
Contagious avarice
When the British were calling the IRA terrorists, American sympathisers funded and protected them and called them “freedom fighters”.
Remember the wisecrack: “the safest place to be in London during an IRA bombing campaign is any branch of McDonalds, as they would never, ever blow up a business outlet of one of their US supporters”.
Previously, the British government had always said it would not intervene in compensation claims brought by victims of explosives and weaponry allegedly supplied to the IRA by Libya.
Still reeling from the row surrounding the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has now changed his stance to support compensation claims against Libya by the victims of IRA attacks.
In a shameless U-turn, Gordon Brown has now thrown his support behind the victims of IRA bombings when they head to Libya to demand compensation from Colonel Gaddafi, including the assignment of a dedicated staff from the Foreign Office to support the victims and their families. Hopefully, if the Libyan government agrees to pay compensation, the US government will not let itself be outdone and will likewise agree to offer a hefty compensation!
But President Gaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam, told Sky News that the matter would be argued in court. “Anyone can knock at our door and ask for money,” he said. “But we go to the courts. They have their lawyers, we have our lawyers.”
I am convinced that no one can disagree with his statement that any such claims will be rejected.
Libya must no longer remain captive to greed.
Finally, may I suggest that all those who are still dubious about the facts regarding the Lockerbie drama, and are willing to learn the whole story, visit the new website: “Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi – My Story”.
“Justice must prevail beyond all other considerations. Beyond politics, convictions, religion, even compassion (and certainly expedience), regardless of one’s sympathies, JUSTICE must be the banner that unites us. This is more than pity for a dying man; this is a demand for justice.” (Danton de Vouvray)
“Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer” – Julian Casablancas
The clamour following the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi had hardly died down when the headlines of the US media barked out: “Terrorist celebrated in Libya”.
What shame and hypocrisy!
Why shouldn’t al-Megrahi be given a hero’s welcome and met with scenes of jubilation, especially by his family and close friends? Wasn’t a hero’s welcome given to Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the other accused and acquitted, equally and rightfully deserving?
Back in 2001, when al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing by a Scottish court, the newspapers were filled with pictures of jubilant relatives of the victims of the 1988 bombing of PanAm 103. Admittedly, they had believed that justice had been meted out, albeit doubtfully.
So, what’s wrong with welcoming home a man whom his countrymen strongly believe to have been unjustly convicted?
What disturbs me most about this matter is the revenge motive. It seems that revenge is a dish best served cold, off the human menu and serving no genuine purpose. The lack of compassion expressed by some shows that they are no better than any terrorist.
I lived in Libya for over three years, so know first hand that most Libyan people are peaceful, hospitable and generous. The spontaneous warm celebration that welcomed this unfortunate man back home does, beyond any doubt, credit to them.
Moreover, not only Libya but also various other competent authorities have always perceived al-Megrahi as innocent.
As he quite rightly said: “I have returned to Tripoli with my UNJUST conviction still in place.” It is extremely shameful for anyone to say that his attempt to challenge his conviction and clear his name is deplorable. What point have we reached? Is it justice to deprive anyone of the chance to prove his innocence?
Although it appears that the US President was not properly informed about the al-Megrahi case, he did not hesitate to condemn Scottish justice for his compassionate release. And what now, Mr President, if Mr al-Megrahi, is finally proved innocent? Perhaps, if the US President cares to give Al-Megrahi’s conviction a second look, reading the book Cover-up of Convenience – The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie, co-authored by investigative journalist Ian Ferguson, would surely prevent him from being so vociferous in his unabashed convictions!
When asked whether Britain would consider reimbursing Libya in the event of Mr al-Megrahi’s exoneration, no one at the Foreign Office was prepared to comment.
What was the reason for the film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie being so fiercely criticised by the US and British governments that subsequently it had to be withdrawn from public viewing?
Truth is everyone’s right and it seems it is still being denied to us.
In a move agreed to by the US and British governments, Libya had offered compensation to the relatives of those killed in the bombing.
In February 2004, the Libyan Prime Minister formally declared that his country was innocent but was forced to pay-up as a “price for peace”. The Libyan government paid the relatives of the Lockerbie victims £803 million in compensation.
The conditions of the deal included the lifting of the United Nations sanctions against Libya, the removal of US sanctions and the removal of Libya from the US list of states “sponsoring terrorism”. Anything goes, as long as it’s paid for! At that time, even the Maltese government had offered support to the Libyan stance. Anything goes as long as it’s paid for!
The only objections to the Libyan initiative came from the French government. Citing the much lower sums offered by Libya to relatives of victims of another aircraft bombing, the French government has demanded a comparable level of compensation for the victims. The victim’s relatives were paid up to $33,000 each by Libya, in contrast to the $10 million each for relatives of the victims of PA 103. Still more avarice – a ceaseless, overwhelming desire for more.
How many of the relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, who recently protested outside the UN building at President Gaddafi’s appearance, were recipients of Libya’s contributions?
Seif Al Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, angered Lockerbie victims’ relatives last year when he said they were “very greedy” and “trading with the blood of their sons and daughters” in their battle for compensation. That’s nothing but the honest truth!
If the release of Mr al-Megrahi was based on greed, as has been implied by various media, it definitely wasn’t on the part of the Libyan government.
Contagious avarice
When the British were calling the IRA terrorists, American sympathisers funded and protected them and called them “freedom fighters”.
Remember the wisecrack: “the safest place to be in London during an IRA bombing campaign is any branch of McDonalds, as they would never, ever blow up a business outlet of one of their US supporters”.
Previously, the British government had always said it would not intervene in compensation claims brought by victims of explosives and weaponry allegedly supplied to the IRA by Libya.
Still reeling from the row surrounding the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has now changed his stance to support compensation claims against Libya by the victims of IRA attacks.
In a shameless U-turn, Gordon Brown has now thrown his support behind the victims of IRA bombings when they head to Libya to demand compensation from Colonel Gaddafi, including the assignment of a dedicated staff from the Foreign Office to support the victims and their families. Hopefully, if the Libyan government agrees to pay compensation, the US government will not let itself be outdone and will likewise agree to offer a hefty compensation!
But President Gaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam, told Sky News that the matter would be argued in court. “Anyone can knock at our door and ask for money,” he said. “But we go to the courts. They have their lawyers, we have our lawyers.”
I am convinced that no one can disagree with his statement that any such claims will be rejected.
Libya must no longer remain captive to greed.
Finally, may I suggest that all those who are still dubious about the facts regarding the Lockerbie drama, and are willing to learn the whole story, visit the new website: “Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi – My Story”.
“Justice must prevail beyond all other considerations. Beyond politics, convictions, religion, even compassion (and certainly expedience), regardless of one’s sympathies, JUSTICE must be the banner that unites us. This is more than pity for a dying man; this is a demand for justice.” (Danton de Vouvray)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)