David Cameron has pledged to "repair the relationship" between the Scottish and UK governments if he is elected to become the next Prime Minister.
The Tory leader said he would work "tirelessly" for the whole of the UK and condemned Gordon Brown for taking a year to met Alex Salmond during one of the "worst economic crisis in our modern history".
Mr Cameron also criticised both governments for not co-operating during the Lockerbie bomber's release, describing it as "shameful".
Addressing party members at their Scottish conference in Perth on Friday afternoon Mr Cameron said that "would not happen on my watch". (...)
On the Lockerbie bomber's release, Mr Cameron said: "It’s shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history, when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today, the Scottish Government and British Government refused to cooperate."
[From a report on the STV News website.
A commentary on this issue on the Hythlodaeus blog contains the following paragraph:]
"As regards the Lockerbie Bomber, there was no need for the Scottish and British Governments to cooperate. There was no issue between Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Justice Minister made a decision about a prisoner in his custody, and Westminster has no more right to have a say in that then the Scottish Government has to have a say about the release of Ronnie Biggs (held in an English Prison and released by Home Secretary Alan Johnston)."
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Kenny MacAskill pressed to share reports on Megrahi's health
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is under pressure to prove the Lockerbie bomber is close to death, with the six-month anniversary of his release coming up next week.
There are increasing calls for Mr MacAskill to publish the latest medical reports on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (...)
Until this week, Mr MacAskill refused to confirm whether he was monitoring Megrahi's health. And last week when asked in the Scottish Parliament about Megrahi's health by Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes, Mr MacAskill compared people waiting for the terrorist's death to "vultures".
In a written answer to Lord Foulkes published this week, the minister has admitted he is receiving updates from East Renfrewshire Council which has responsibility for checking whether Megrahi is following the terms of his conditional release and monitoring his health.
Lord Foulkes said: "I think that Mr MacAskill is getting more nervous. He may accuse people of being vultures for taking an interest in this, but I think he realises that the longer Megrahi lives, the more ridiculous his flawed decision to release him looks."
Lord Foulkes is also demanding that medical reports received on Megrahi are made public to provide evidence that Megrahi really only has a short time to live.
The demand has been rejected by the Scottish Government.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary sent Mr al-Megrahi back to Libya to die based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and prison governor, and the medical report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.
"As was said at the time, he may die sooner or may live longer, but he is dying of terminal prostate cancer."
[The evidence that the newspaper provides for there being "increasing calls" for publication of medical reports is a question and comment by a single MSP, Lord Foulkes, a well-known Labour rent-a-quote.
The many readers' comments that follow the article on the newspaper's website provide perhaps a more accurate reflection of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A letter from Malcolm Ewen published in The Scotsman on 11 February, reads as follows:]
At no time has justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, "had less than three months to live" (your report, 10 February). Lord George Foulkes's belief that Mr MacAskill "is getting more nervous" because Megrahi is still with us almost six months on is unlikely, given that he followed the correct procedure on compassionate release.
Mr MacAskill actually said: "A report ... from the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate."
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is under pressure to prove the Lockerbie bomber is close to death, with the six-month anniversary of his release coming up next week.
There are increasing calls for Mr MacAskill to publish the latest medical reports on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (...)
Until this week, Mr MacAskill refused to confirm whether he was monitoring Megrahi's health. And last week when asked in the Scottish Parliament about Megrahi's health by Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes, Mr MacAskill compared people waiting for the terrorist's death to "vultures".
In a written answer to Lord Foulkes published this week, the minister has admitted he is receiving updates from East Renfrewshire Council which has responsibility for checking whether Megrahi is following the terms of his conditional release and monitoring his health.
Lord Foulkes said: "I think that Mr MacAskill is getting more nervous. He may accuse people of being vultures for taking an interest in this, but I think he realises that the longer Megrahi lives, the more ridiculous his flawed decision to release him looks."
Lord Foulkes is also demanding that medical reports received on Megrahi are made public to provide evidence that Megrahi really only has a short time to live.
The demand has been rejected by the Scottish Government.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary sent Mr al-Megrahi back to Libya to die based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and prison governor, and the medical report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.
"As was said at the time, he may die sooner or may live longer, but he is dying of terminal prostate cancer."
[The evidence that the newspaper provides for there being "increasing calls" for publication of medical reports is a question and comment by a single MSP, Lord Foulkes, a well-known Labour rent-a-quote.
The many readers' comments that follow the article on the newspaper's website provide perhaps a more accurate reflection of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A letter from Malcolm Ewen published in The Scotsman on 11 February, reads as follows:]
At no time has justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, "had less than three months to live" (your report, 10 February). Lord George Foulkes's belief that Mr MacAskill "is getting more nervous" because Megrahi is still with us almost six months on is unlikely, given that he followed the correct procedure on compassionate release.
Mr MacAskill actually said: "A report ... from the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate."
Friday, 5 February 2010
Flaws in evidence at Lockerbie trial
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The Chilcot Inquiry has examined the role of the Blair government’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, allegedly converted to believing the Iraq war to be legal following “consultations in the USA”.
Should not the Lockerbie inquiry, when we get it, examine why the government of the day chose to ignore the words of its Lord Chief Justice, and appointed [Alan] Feraday to supply the forensic input to the Lockerbie trial?
Mr Feraday was criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v Berry (1991). He declared that the nature of his evidence was dogmatic in the extreme and that he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in this field. Also, the Home Office has paid compensation from the public purse to Mr Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Mr Feraday.
The Lockerbie case depended heavily upon a piece of timer circuit board allegedly recovered from the wreckage and labelled “PT35B” presented to the court by the same Mr Feraday, who also had consultations with the USA.
Assuming the British Government wanted the Lockerbie trial to reach a fair verdict, was this really the best we had to offer?
The Chilcot Inquiry has examined the role of the Blair government’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, allegedly converted to believing the Iraq war to be legal following “consultations in the USA”.
Should not the Lockerbie inquiry, when we get it, examine why the government of the day chose to ignore the words of its Lord Chief Justice, and appointed [Alan] Feraday to supply the forensic input to the Lockerbie trial?
Mr Feraday was criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v Berry (1991). He declared that the nature of his evidence was dogmatic in the extreme and that he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in this field. Also, the Home Office has paid compensation from the public purse to Mr Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Mr Feraday.
The Lockerbie case depended heavily upon a piece of timer circuit board allegedly recovered from the wreckage and labelled “PT35B” presented to the court by the same Mr Feraday, who also had consultations with the USA.
Assuming the British Government wanted the Lockerbie trial to reach a fair verdict, was this really the best we had to offer?
Holyrood committee splits over handling of Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report posted earlier today on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya
An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.
MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.
The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.
It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.
On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.
The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)
After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.
Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.
"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.
"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."
[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.
The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]
MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya
An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.
MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.
The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.
It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.
On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.
The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)
After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.
Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.
"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.
"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."
[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.
The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
FBI is sued for not releasing Megrahi files
This is the headline over an article -- tagged as exclusive -- in today's edition of The Herald. It relates to the legal action raised in the United States by Judicial Watch following its fruitless FOIA application for documents held by the FBI relating to the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. This was the subject of a post on this blog as long ago as 22 January 2010.
Scottish Parliament’s verdict on Lockerbie bomber sacrifices justice for political point-scoring
[This is the headline over an article by Alan Cochrane in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
An entirely predictable event occurred at Holyrood yesterday. The Scottish Parliament’s justice committee met to finalise its report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and guess what it concluded?
The committee found by a majority that the decision last autumn by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, was wrong. It will say so in public when the report is published tomorrow.
Mind you, it is peppered with caveats insisted upon by the minority SNP members. It is hedged to such an extent, in fact, that, unless I am mistaken, any criticism of the minister may well be much diminished. (...)
But, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole thing is a farce. Given that the composition of the justice committee is three SNP members, three Labour, one Tory and one Liberal Democrat — in other words a majority for the opposition parties, all of which opposed the bomber’s release — the report was always going to come down against MacAskill.
It was as certain as the morning, as sure as eggs is eggs and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
While there may be many, not least the families of the victims of Britain’s worst terrorist outrage, who will pore over every word of the justice committee report, they should take no solace from its findings.
It is sadly obvious that this is a report produced not by dispassionate observers of the scene, but by political animals acting primarily for reasons of party advantage.
The main aim of the opposition MSPs was to bash the Nats. Those who owe allegiance to Mr MacAskill’s party saw it as their bounden duty to protect their man. They may all take this as an insult to their honour — I hope they do — but this report was base coinage right from the start. (...)
It is unsurprising that this is the case. Those responsible for setting up the ground rules for Holyrood supposed, stupidly as it turns out, that members of the Scottish Parliament would, somehow, be unlike their Westminster colleagues and would pay no heed to party politicking.
In fact, Edinburgh’s lot has turned out pretty much like London’s, as was bound to be the case. With a minority SNP administration in power holding a one-seat advantage over Labour there is always scope for the opposition to embarrass and defeat ministers.
It is a shame that a report on such an emotional subject as the release of a mass murderer should be devalued like this.
But I’m afraid that is the way they do things at Holyrood.
[In a comment posted on the newspaper's website, Dr Jim Swire writes:
"Surely the real scandal is that we still refer to him as the 'Lockerbie bomber' or 'mass murderer'without a second thought when we don't know yet whether even that is true.
"To what purpose did Scotland's SCCRC decide there may have been a miscarriage of justice here? Should we not pursue that finding? Many now support the doubts voiced by the SCCRC. Scotland needs to work through all her own provisions for a just verdict before squabbling over Kenny's decision. Future confidence in our prosecution system depends upon that."
Alan Cochrane returns to the issue at the end of an article published on the Telegraph website on Friday, 5 February. He writes:
"I was wrong earlier this week when I expressed fears about the nature and content of the justice committee’s report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. It is much worse than I had envisaged.
"It broke down completely on party lines, as I predicted, but the extent of their partisanship is staggering to behold with the three Labour MSPs saying one thing and the three SNP members saying another. The upshot, and on such an important issue, is that the report is a mouse, worthy only of the incinerator."]
An entirely predictable event occurred at Holyrood yesterday. The Scottish Parliament’s justice committee met to finalise its report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and guess what it concluded?
The committee found by a majority that the decision last autumn by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, was wrong. It will say so in public when the report is published tomorrow.
Mind you, it is peppered with caveats insisted upon by the minority SNP members. It is hedged to such an extent, in fact, that, unless I am mistaken, any criticism of the minister may well be much diminished. (...)
But, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole thing is a farce. Given that the composition of the justice committee is three SNP members, three Labour, one Tory and one Liberal Democrat — in other words a majority for the opposition parties, all of which opposed the bomber’s release — the report was always going to come down against MacAskill.
It was as certain as the morning, as sure as eggs is eggs and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
While there may be many, not least the families of the victims of Britain’s worst terrorist outrage, who will pore over every word of the justice committee report, they should take no solace from its findings.
It is sadly obvious that this is a report produced not by dispassionate observers of the scene, but by political animals acting primarily for reasons of party advantage.
The main aim of the opposition MSPs was to bash the Nats. Those who owe allegiance to Mr MacAskill’s party saw it as their bounden duty to protect their man. They may all take this as an insult to their honour — I hope they do — but this report was base coinage right from the start. (...)
It is unsurprising that this is the case. Those responsible for setting up the ground rules for Holyrood supposed, stupidly as it turns out, that members of the Scottish Parliament would, somehow, be unlike their Westminster colleagues and would pay no heed to party politicking.
In fact, Edinburgh’s lot has turned out pretty much like London’s, as was bound to be the case. With a minority SNP administration in power holding a one-seat advantage over Labour there is always scope for the opposition to embarrass and defeat ministers.
It is a shame that a report on such an emotional subject as the release of a mass murderer should be devalued like this.
But I’m afraid that is the way they do things at Holyrood.
[In a comment posted on the newspaper's website, Dr Jim Swire writes:
"Surely the real scandal is that we still refer to him as the 'Lockerbie bomber' or 'mass murderer'without a second thought when we don't know yet whether even that is true.
"To what purpose did Scotland's SCCRC decide there may have been a miscarriage of justice here? Should we not pursue that finding? Many now support the doubts voiced by the SCCRC. Scotland needs to work through all her own provisions for a just verdict before squabbling over Kenny's decision. Future confidence in our prosecution system depends upon that."
Alan Cochrane returns to the issue at the end of an article published on the Telegraph website on Friday, 5 February. He writes:
"I was wrong earlier this week when I expressed fears about the nature and content of the justice committee’s report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. It is much worse than I had envisaged.
"It broke down completely on party lines, as I predicted, but the extent of their partisanship is staggering to behold with the three Labour MSPs saying one thing and the three SNP members saying another. The upshot, and on such an important issue, is that the report is a mouse, worthy only of the incinerator."]
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Interview with Dr Swire
Monday, 1 February 2010
Documents on Lockerbie may never be seen
[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Hundreds of pages of documents that could prove the key to the Lockerbie bombing and which are expected to be released today may never see the light of day.
Contrary to public expectations following an announcement in December last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not yet be able to release its 800-page report on the case, and is unlikely to be able to disclose much information in the future.
Without the approval of all the key players in the case, including Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police and witnesses such as Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci, it is unlikely that any of the material could legally be disclosed to the public. Gauci’s evidence was central to Megrahi’s conviction.
Today, the commission will begin writing to hundreds of different parties involved, asking for their permission to disclose. But it could be months or weeks before permission is granted and many of those involved are expected to decline.
Gerard Sinclair, chief executive of the SCCRC, said: “Like any other public body dealing with personal sensitive data, the commission is subject to a number of legal constraints. We will have to comply with all the appropriate statutory obligations, including the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information legislation.”
Legally, the commission has to respect the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, it has to consider whether disclosure would constitute “a breach of confidence”, contains “personal data” or information that has been lodged in court.
The Scottish Government has made it clear that it wants to see as much information made public as possible but, even if the prosecution and key witnesses agree to disclosure, there are other documents that are never expected to be released and have not even been seen by the defence team because Westminster has blocked them with arguments about national security. (...)
Since devolution, the power [to allow the SCCRC to disclose information] has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument [permitting the SCCRC to disclose] would come into force on February 1.
At the time, Mr MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
“The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
Hundreds of pages of documents that could prove the key to the Lockerbie bombing and which are expected to be released today may never see the light of day.
Contrary to public expectations following an announcement in December last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not yet be able to release its 800-page report on the case, and is unlikely to be able to disclose much information in the future.
Without the approval of all the key players in the case, including Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police and witnesses such as Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci, it is unlikely that any of the material could legally be disclosed to the public. Gauci’s evidence was central to Megrahi’s conviction.
Today, the commission will begin writing to hundreds of different parties involved, asking for their permission to disclose. But it could be months or weeks before permission is granted and many of those involved are expected to decline.
Gerard Sinclair, chief executive of the SCCRC, said: “Like any other public body dealing with personal sensitive data, the commission is subject to a number of legal constraints. We will have to comply with all the appropriate statutory obligations, including the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information legislation.”
Legally, the commission has to respect the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, it has to consider whether disclosure would constitute “a breach of confidence”, contains “personal data” or information that has been lodged in court.
The Scottish Government has made it clear that it wants to see as much information made public as possible but, even if the prosecution and key witnesses agree to disclosure, there are other documents that are never expected to be released and have not even been seen by the defence team because Westminster has blocked them with arguments about national security. (...)
Since devolution, the power [to allow the SCCRC to disclose information] has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument [permitting the SCCRC to disclose] would come into force on February 1.
At the time, Mr MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
“The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
Europe "lost" Lockerbie observer's trial reports
[This is the headline over a news report on the website on the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.
The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.
Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”
“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.
“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”
The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.
The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.
Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”
“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.
“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Kenny MacAskill rapped over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, is accused of mishandling the release of the Lockerbie bomber in a damning report to be published next week.
The findings of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee are expected to include strong criticism of MacAskill’s decision to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in prison before he was freed and of his failure to secure assurances from the Libyan government that the bomber would not return to a hero’s welcome.
The draft document suggests MacAskill failed to consider adequately the feelings of the victims’ families before releasing the former intelligence officer on compassionate grounds last autumn.
Committee members viewed the prison visit as unnecessary, suggesting he could have accepted representations from Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in writing. They believe the minister was insensitive, given that he spoke to the US relatives of victims of the bombing by video-conference rather than visiting them.
When Megrahi returned home to Libya he was greeted by cheering crowds waving saltires. The scenes angered the relatives of those who died and led to threats of an American boycott of Scottish goods.
“The report will be highly critical of MacAskill,” said a source close to the committee. “It will make very embarrassing reading for him and the Scottish government by focusing yet more attention on one of Scotland’s darkest days. After the international and domestic outrage that the government’s decision caused it just wants to make the issue disappear.”
Labour members do not believe MacAskill followed Scottish prison service guidelines in freeing Megrahi. They insist he should have sought a second opinion on the prognosis that Megrahi had three months to live.
Only a prison doctor was willing to state that Megrahi would be likely to die in three months’ time, while four cancer specialists refused to back that opinion. (...)
A spokesman for MacAskill said: “The justice secretary followed due process every step of the way, and has repeatedly expressed his deepest sympathy for the relatives of all victims of the Lockerbie atrocity.”
A separate Commons inquiry by the Scottish affairs select committee is considering whether dealings between the UK government and Libya led to the prisoner transfer agreement which put Megrahi’s case on MacAskill’s agenda.
In Seeking Gaddafi, a book to be published next week, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski calls on the government after the general election to hold a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
[1. Once Kenny MacAskill -- presumably after taking advice from officials -- decided to allow face-to-face (and not just written) representations from relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103, he was legally obliged to offer the same opportunity to Mr Megrahi. A failure to do so would have been a breach of the rules of natural justice and would have made any decision reached vulnerable to successful judicial challenge.
2. Four cancer specialists may very well have refused to give a precise time for Mr Megrahi's life expectancy. This is not in the least surprising and is not sinister. Cancer specialists in practice always refuse to do so, taking the view that their job is to make the patient's remaining time as comfortable as it can be, however long or short that time may be. If the patient (or his family) needs to have an estimate of how long remains to him, it is the general practitioner who is likely to provide it, on the basis of the opinions and reports of the specialists. This is precisely what happened in Mr Megrahi's case.
3. If the justice committee's report does indeed criticise Mr MacAskill on these grounds next week, it will be yet another sad instance of the party political posturing that has characterised the stance of the Labour and Conservative opposition at Holyrood over this issue.]
The justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, is accused of mishandling the release of the Lockerbie bomber in a damning report to be published next week.
The findings of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee are expected to include strong criticism of MacAskill’s decision to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in prison before he was freed and of his failure to secure assurances from the Libyan government that the bomber would not return to a hero’s welcome.
The draft document suggests MacAskill failed to consider adequately the feelings of the victims’ families before releasing the former intelligence officer on compassionate grounds last autumn.
Committee members viewed the prison visit as unnecessary, suggesting he could have accepted representations from Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in writing. They believe the minister was insensitive, given that he spoke to the US relatives of victims of the bombing by video-conference rather than visiting them.
When Megrahi returned home to Libya he was greeted by cheering crowds waving saltires. The scenes angered the relatives of those who died and led to threats of an American boycott of Scottish goods.
“The report will be highly critical of MacAskill,” said a source close to the committee. “It will make very embarrassing reading for him and the Scottish government by focusing yet more attention on one of Scotland’s darkest days. After the international and domestic outrage that the government’s decision caused it just wants to make the issue disappear.”
Labour members do not believe MacAskill followed Scottish prison service guidelines in freeing Megrahi. They insist he should have sought a second opinion on the prognosis that Megrahi had three months to live.
Only a prison doctor was willing to state that Megrahi would be likely to die in three months’ time, while four cancer specialists refused to back that opinion. (...)
A spokesman for MacAskill said: “The justice secretary followed due process every step of the way, and has repeatedly expressed his deepest sympathy for the relatives of all victims of the Lockerbie atrocity.”
A separate Commons inquiry by the Scottish affairs select committee is considering whether dealings between the UK government and Libya led to the prisoner transfer agreement which put Megrahi’s case on MacAskill’s agenda.
In Seeking Gaddafi, a book to be published next week, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski calls on the government after the general election to hold a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
[1. Once Kenny MacAskill -- presumably after taking advice from officials -- decided to allow face-to-face (and not just written) representations from relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103, he was legally obliged to offer the same opportunity to Mr Megrahi. A failure to do so would have been a breach of the rules of natural justice and would have made any decision reached vulnerable to successful judicial challenge.
2. Four cancer specialists may very well have refused to give a precise time for Mr Megrahi's life expectancy. This is not in the least surprising and is not sinister. Cancer specialists in practice always refuse to do so, taking the view that their job is to make the patient's remaining time as comfortable as it can be, however long or short that time may be. If the patient (or his family) needs to have an estimate of how long remains to him, it is the general practitioner who is likely to provide it, on the basis of the opinions and reports of the specialists. This is precisely what happened in Mr Megrahi's case.
3. If the justice committee's report does indeed criticise Mr MacAskill on these grounds next week, it will be yet another sad instance of the party political posturing that has characterised the stance of the Labour and Conservative opposition at Holyrood over this issue.]
A shameful anniversary
Today is the ninth anniversary of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. How much longer will it be before this stain is removed from the Scottish criminal justice system?
Straw fights release of transcript of calls over Libyan oil deal
Justice Secretary denies agreeing to release of Lockerbie bomber in talks with BP lobbyist
Jack Straw was accused last night of trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Secretary of State for Justice has turned down a Freedom of Information request from a Commons select committee to reveal whether, during two phone calls with the lobbyist, he agreed to include Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in Britain's Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya.
Mr Straw has admitted having two conversations with Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent turned BP consultant, in the autumn of 2007. But he has insisted that "at no stage was any undertaking promised, hinted, given to the Libyans, that in return for an overall bilateral arrangement Mr Megrahi would be released". (...)
Megrahi, convicted for the 1988 bombing which killed 270, was released last August on compassionate grounds – rather than under the PTA – by the Scottish Executive.
But Mr Straw's discussions with BP are still contentious because MPs believe ministers gave a smooth path for the release in the interests of trade with the Libyan government.
In early 2007, BP signed a $900m (£562m) oil exploration deal with Libya but the energy giant was concerned that the ongoing stalemate over the PTA would damage the contract. Sir Mark, who was involved in the 2003 deal for Colonel Gaddafi to give up his weapons of mass destruction programme, left MI6 in 2004 to work for BP. He telephoned Mr Straw, whom he knew from the minister's time as Foreign Secretary, on 15 October and 9 November 2007. On 19 December 2007, Mr Straw wrote to Mr MacAskill informing him of the British government's change of position.
The Conservative MP and member of the Scottish affairs committee Ben Wallace has written to Mr Straw demanding to see notes of the calls.
During Mr Straw's appearance before the committee last Wednesday, Mr Wallace told him: "I think we should know to what extent HM Government gave commitments in exchange for trade and whether that included Megrahi."
Mr Straw replied: "There's been no secret about the fact that I took two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen – I take telephone calls from all sorts of people. Sir Mark Allen is somebody I knew from my time in the Foreign Office. He actually had very extensive knowledge of the Middle East and in a role in the Foreign Office had been very much involved in these negotiations. I thought he was worth listening to. And that's what I did."
Asked by Mr Wallace whether he would release the notes, Mr Straw said tersely: "Decisions about the release of material under FOI are dealt with separately, with respect, all right?"
Mr Straw's spokesman said the request was turned down under section 35 of the FOI Act, which exempts ministerial communications. Mr Wallace is appealing on public interest grounds.
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. Readers may also care to have a look at this blog post.]
Jack Straw was accused last night of trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Secretary of State for Justice has turned down a Freedom of Information request from a Commons select committee to reveal whether, during two phone calls with the lobbyist, he agreed to include Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in Britain's Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya.
Mr Straw has admitted having two conversations with Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent turned BP consultant, in the autumn of 2007. But he has insisted that "at no stage was any undertaking promised, hinted, given to the Libyans, that in return for an overall bilateral arrangement Mr Megrahi would be released". (...)
Megrahi, convicted for the 1988 bombing which killed 270, was released last August on compassionate grounds – rather than under the PTA – by the Scottish Executive.
But Mr Straw's discussions with BP are still contentious because MPs believe ministers gave a smooth path for the release in the interests of trade with the Libyan government.
In early 2007, BP signed a $900m (£562m) oil exploration deal with Libya but the energy giant was concerned that the ongoing stalemate over the PTA would damage the contract. Sir Mark, who was involved in the 2003 deal for Colonel Gaddafi to give up his weapons of mass destruction programme, left MI6 in 2004 to work for BP. He telephoned Mr Straw, whom he knew from the minister's time as Foreign Secretary, on 15 October and 9 November 2007. On 19 December 2007, Mr Straw wrote to Mr MacAskill informing him of the British government's change of position.
The Conservative MP and member of the Scottish affairs committee Ben Wallace has written to Mr Straw demanding to see notes of the calls.
During Mr Straw's appearance before the committee last Wednesday, Mr Wallace told him: "I think we should know to what extent HM Government gave commitments in exchange for trade and whether that included Megrahi."
Mr Straw replied: "There's been no secret about the fact that I took two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen – I take telephone calls from all sorts of people. Sir Mark Allen is somebody I knew from my time in the Foreign Office. He actually had very extensive knowledge of the Middle East and in a role in the Foreign Office had been very much involved in these negotiations. I thought he was worth listening to. And that's what I did."
Asked by Mr Wallace whether he would release the notes, Mr Straw said tersely: "Decisions about the release of material under FOI are dealt with separately, with respect, all right?"
Mr Straw's spokesman said the request was turned down under section 35 of the FOI Act, which exempts ministerial communications. Mr Wallace is appealing on public interest grounds.
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. Readers may also care to have a look at this blog post.]
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Some reflections following Tony Blair's appearance at the Iraq Inquiry
[The following reflections come from Dr Jim Swire, who has kindly permitted me to publish them here.]
In seeking to defend his decisions over Iraq, Mr Blair emphasised to Chilcot how the atrocity of 9/11 instantaneously changed the 'tolerance of risk' for the government and people of the USA, even venturing to suggest that sooner or later the same approach might be used upon Iran.
9/11 was of course the 11th of September 2001. In England it was a beautiful autumn day with the sun streaming down on the open French-windows of a house in Worcestershire. In the grounds of that house stood a 'satellite van' with its dish aligned on a satellite positioned over Madagascar, designed to transport the local scene to the studios of Sky TV for transmission instantly to a world audience.
Sky TV was there to discuss the significance of a new and startling development following the verdict reached in Zeist, Holland, against the Libyan intelligence agent al-Megrahi. That verdict had claimed that in a bizarre and complex conspiracy, Megrahi, from Malta, had used a sophisticated Swiss timer, well capable of being set to explode over mid Atlantic, to thread his bomb's route through three airports and two changes of aircraft, to litter the peaceful fields of Lockerbie with the debris of 259 human beings and a gigantic aircraft, and to murder 11 of Lockerbie's people, all just 38 minutes after it had left the Heathrow tarmac.
Sky TV were there, more than 12 years later, because they had only just heard that, unknown to the Zeist court, that there had been a break-in at Heathrow in the early morning of the disaster, giving access through the perimeter to the baggage assembly shed where the PanAm baggage container, shown at Zeist to have contained the bomb, was loaded that evening.
They were also there asking the question why this information had lain hidden for more than 12 years till after the verdict was reached at Zeist.
Our families had climbed aboard a flight at Heathrow which our Fatal Accident Inquiry, although also ignorant of the break-in, had found to be under the host state protection of the UK while being loaded from empty there. It was a valid question to ask of our government. Particularly when one realises that the same Zeist court had heard full details of a type of bomb built in Syria, which was available in 1988 and stable indefinitely at ground level, yet designed always to explode approximately 37 minutes after take off.
The Lockerbie plane managed just 38 minutes of flight.
Hollow indeed now rang the trumpeting of Paul Channon, Thatcher's Transport secretary, to the House of Commons on 22 December 1988 that we should be proud that at least Heathrow's security was known to be amongst the best in the world.
Throughout the day of 21st December 1988 Heathrow authorities knew that there had been a break-in, yet they did not know who had broken in, nor what the motive might have been. At a time of known increased terrorist threat they continued the lucrative flow of outgoing flights until the bomb exploded on PanAm 103 that evening.
When criticising an accepted theory, it is useful to produce a simpler and more credible alternative.
So what if the Heathrow break-in was indeed the route for getting a bomb onto the Lockerbie aircraft? For a start the Iran/Syria grouping with their pressing revenge motive and their unique possession of this technology would be centre stage, Malta Frankfurt and Megrahi would be irrelevant.
Such a theory is unexplored: why is that?
Why did the news of the break-in lie hidden for 12 years?
Who was complicit in concealing it?
What was their motive for doing so?
We know that the Metropolitan police (and therefore presumably the Thatcher government) knew of it, why did they keep quiet?.
Why were the Metropolitan police excluded from the [Lockerbie] investigation, turned over by Thatcher to a Scottish force?
Does this throw any light on why Thatcher and every Prime Minister since, including Blair and Brown, has for 21 years refused us the inquiry to which we have an inalienable right?
Did the Crown Office know about the break-in? They have claimed that they didn't.
Did the investigating Scottish police know about it? They haven't said. Of course a Heathrow break-in was a simple but potent threat to their complex Malta hypothesis.
As the sun still shone through those French windows, the Sky TV reporters heard through their phones that a second plane had struck. Now there was no doubt: this was a huge planned terrorist outrage on America's trophy city New York. For a US public which had never had to bear the outrage of enemy bombing of its home territory, as Blair said to Chilcot, the 'tolerance of risk' in America had changed for ever.
Like the morning dew, the Sky reporters and their technology melted away to cover this new atrocity. The coincidence of 9/11's timing had disabled the power of a free media to question the received wisdom.
But the questions remain and shall be professionally addressed.
Unlike Blair, many affected by the Lockerbie atrocity have avoided the idea of retaliation by force against the responsible country, pressing for the use of justice. They see that the atrocity was an act of revenge, and that to seek revenge for it in turn is to abandon the intellectual high ground, and to sink to the philosophy favoured by some terrorists. So long as Blair and all who have shared his office and establishment continue to rely blindly upon a solution to the worst terrorist atrocity ever to occur in their country, which seems fatally flawed, they put at risk more civilised routes through international justice. Their way stands to bring a blight upon all our futures.
In the end history, not Chilcot, will judge them.
In seeking to defend his decisions over Iraq, Mr Blair emphasised to Chilcot how the atrocity of 9/11 instantaneously changed the 'tolerance of risk' for the government and people of the USA, even venturing to suggest that sooner or later the same approach might be used upon Iran.
9/11 was of course the 11th of September 2001. In England it was a beautiful autumn day with the sun streaming down on the open French-windows of a house in Worcestershire. In the grounds of that house stood a 'satellite van' with its dish aligned on a satellite positioned over Madagascar, designed to transport the local scene to the studios of Sky TV for transmission instantly to a world audience.
Sky TV was there to discuss the significance of a new and startling development following the verdict reached in Zeist, Holland, against the Libyan intelligence agent al-Megrahi. That verdict had claimed that in a bizarre and complex conspiracy, Megrahi, from Malta, had used a sophisticated Swiss timer, well capable of being set to explode over mid Atlantic, to thread his bomb's route through three airports and two changes of aircraft, to litter the peaceful fields of Lockerbie with the debris of 259 human beings and a gigantic aircraft, and to murder 11 of Lockerbie's people, all just 38 minutes after it had left the Heathrow tarmac.
Sky TV were there, more than 12 years later, because they had only just heard that, unknown to the Zeist court, that there had been a break-in at Heathrow in the early morning of the disaster, giving access through the perimeter to the baggage assembly shed where the PanAm baggage container, shown at Zeist to have contained the bomb, was loaded that evening.
They were also there asking the question why this information had lain hidden for more than 12 years till after the verdict was reached at Zeist.
Our families had climbed aboard a flight at Heathrow which our Fatal Accident Inquiry, although also ignorant of the break-in, had found to be under the host state protection of the UK while being loaded from empty there. It was a valid question to ask of our government. Particularly when one realises that the same Zeist court had heard full details of a type of bomb built in Syria, which was available in 1988 and stable indefinitely at ground level, yet designed always to explode approximately 37 minutes after take off.
The Lockerbie plane managed just 38 minutes of flight.
Hollow indeed now rang the trumpeting of Paul Channon, Thatcher's Transport secretary, to the House of Commons on 22 December 1988 that we should be proud that at least Heathrow's security was known to be amongst the best in the world.
Throughout the day of 21st December 1988 Heathrow authorities knew that there had been a break-in, yet they did not know who had broken in, nor what the motive might have been. At a time of known increased terrorist threat they continued the lucrative flow of outgoing flights until the bomb exploded on PanAm 103 that evening.
When criticising an accepted theory, it is useful to produce a simpler and more credible alternative.
So what if the Heathrow break-in was indeed the route for getting a bomb onto the Lockerbie aircraft? For a start the Iran/Syria grouping with their pressing revenge motive and their unique possession of this technology would be centre stage, Malta Frankfurt and Megrahi would be irrelevant.
Such a theory is unexplored: why is that?
Why did the news of the break-in lie hidden for 12 years?
Who was complicit in concealing it?
What was their motive for doing so?
We know that the Metropolitan police (and therefore presumably the Thatcher government) knew of it, why did they keep quiet?.
Why were the Metropolitan police excluded from the [Lockerbie] investigation, turned over by Thatcher to a Scottish force?
Does this throw any light on why Thatcher and every Prime Minister since, including Blair and Brown, has for 21 years refused us the inquiry to which we have an inalienable right?
Did the Crown Office know about the break-in? They have claimed that they didn't.
Did the investigating Scottish police know about it? They haven't said. Of course a Heathrow break-in was a simple but potent threat to their complex Malta hypothesis.
As the sun still shone through those French windows, the Sky TV reporters heard through their phones that a second plane had struck. Now there was no doubt: this was a huge planned terrorist outrage on America's trophy city New York. For a US public which had never had to bear the outrage of enemy bombing of its home territory, as Blair said to Chilcot, the 'tolerance of risk' in America had changed for ever.
Like the morning dew, the Sky reporters and their technology melted away to cover this new atrocity. The coincidence of 9/11's timing had disabled the power of a free media to question the received wisdom.
But the questions remain and shall be professionally addressed.
Unlike Blair, many affected by the Lockerbie atrocity have avoided the idea of retaliation by force against the responsible country, pressing for the use of justice. They see that the atrocity was an act of revenge, and that to seek revenge for it in turn is to abandon the intellectual high ground, and to sink to the philosophy favoured by some terrorists. So long as Blair and all who have shared his office and establishment continue to rely blindly upon a solution to the worst terrorist atrocity ever to occur in their country, which seems fatally flawed, they put at risk more civilised routes through international justice. Their way stands to bring a blight upon all our futures.
In the end history, not Chilcot, will judge them.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Straw says Holyrood not gratuitously kept in the dark over Megrahi deal
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Jack Straw said Holyrood was “not gratuitously kept in the dark” about the UK Government’s dealings with Libya over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement in relation to the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Giving evidence to the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, the UK Justice Secretary was asked by the SNP’s Pete Wishart if it would not have been helpful for London to have kept Edinburgh informed about the agreement being drawn up with Tripoli.
Mr Straw said: “Where you are involved in complicated negotiations with a country like Libya, they have to be handled with great confidentiality.”
However, he went on: “We had no interest whatever in keeping the Scottish Executive gratuitously in the dark about this.” Mr Straw pointed out that no PTA gave the Libyan government or Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi a right to transfer, only a right to make an application.
“The Libyans absolutely understood that the discretion in respect... of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive.”
Ben Wallace, the deputy shadow Scottish Secretary, pressed Mr Straw on why he was “blocking” the release of the note about two phone calls he took from Sir Mark Allen, a BP consultant.
“It’s odd a man from BP rings you up, the position changes, an oil deal is signed and nowhere in the process is the victim included.”
Mr Straw replied that no promise or hint was given to Libya that in return for an bilateral arrangement, Mr Megrahi would be released.
[According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"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."]
Jack Straw said Holyrood was “not gratuitously kept in the dark” about the UK Government’s dealings with Libya over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement in relation to the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Giving evidence to the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, the UK Justice Secretary was asked by the SNP’s Pete Wishart if it would not have been helpful for London to have kept Edinburgh informed about the agreement being drawn up with Tripoli.
Mr Straw said: “Where you are involved in complicated negotiations with a country like Libya, they have to be handled with great confidentiality.”
However, he went on: “We had no interest whatever in keeping the Scottish Executive gratuitously in the dark about this.” Mr Straw pointed out that no PTA gave the Libyan government or Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi a right to transfer, only a right to make an application.
“The Libyans absolutely understood that the discretion in respect... of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive.”
Ben Wallace, the deputy shadow Scottish Secretary, pressed Mr Straw on why he was “blocking” the release of the note about two phone calls he took from Sir Mark Allen, a BP consultant.
“It’s odd a man from BP rings you up, the position changes, an oil deal is signed and nowhere in the process is the victim included.”
Mr Straw replied that no promise or hint was given to Libya that in return for an bilateral arrangement, Mr Megrahi would be released.
[According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:
"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."]
Monday, 25 January 2010
New Lockerbie blog
A warm welcome to Caustic Logic's new blog The Lockerbie Divide. This contains a series of articles setting out and commenting on the evidence against Megrahi, as well as providing useful links to primary and secondary sources, including many of the documentary films made about the Lockerbie disaster.
I came across the new blog while doing one of my periodical trawls on Google BlogSearch. Caustic Logic tells me that he would have preferred some more lead-in time before publicising the site. He writes:
"Hey, thanks for yet another plug. I wasn't quite ready to announce the new site at large, but close enough. I was hoping you could include this, or something to this effect, in that post?
"For The Lockerbie Divide, which is about ready to announce to the experts anyway, if not the whole world, I'm hoping for input from others. Opinion/analysis essays as well as, especially, just filling in slots like "London Origin Theory" or "Megrahi's links to Mebo", Megrahi's bank account", or "Origins of the drugs theory". Especially I'd be honored to invite Nennt mich einfach Adam!, Aku, Baz, Ebol, Frank Duggan, Michael Follon, Patrick Haseldine, Richard Marquise, Charles, Quincey Riddle, Rolfe, Ruth, Sfm and others I've run into round here. Those interested in contributing directly or with submissions, can contact me by e-mail at: caustic_logic@yahoo.com
"The site name and surface approach are changeable. So far I'm going for a mountain (divide) theme - learning is climbing. I have specific ideas of "surface material" that viewers will see first/grab onto, but would like input there as well. Heck, just criticism and general ideas are valuable."
I came across the new blog while doing one of my periodical trawls on Google BlogSearch. Caustic Logic tells me that he would have preferred some more lead-in time before publicising the site. He writes:
"Hey, thanks for yet another plug. I wasn't quite ready to announce the new site at large, but close enough. I was hoping you could include this, or something to this effect, in that post?
"For The Lockerbie Divide, which is about ready to announce to the experts anyway, if not the whole world, I'm hoping for input from others. Opinion/analysis essays as well as, especially, just filling in slots like "London Origin Theory" or "Megrahi's links to Mebo", Megrahi's bank account", or "Origins of the drugs theory". Especially I'd be honored to invite Nennt mich einfach Adam!, Aku, Baz, Ebol, Frank Duggan, Michael Follon, Patrick Haseldine, Richard Marquise, Charles, Quincey Riddle, Rolfe, Ruth, Sfm and others I've run into round here. Those interested in contributing directly or with submissions, can contact me by e-mail at: caustic_logic@yahoo.com
"The site name and surface approach are changeable. So far I'm going for a mountain (divide) theme - learning is climbing. I have specific ideas of "surface material" that viewers will see first/grab onto, but would like input there as well. Heck, just criticism and general ideas are valuable."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)