[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
The far right Scottish Defence League plans to march on the Lockerbie Memorial in a move that has been condemned by politicians of all parties and the families of those who died in the disaster.
The plans by the organisation, which has been holding protests against the "Islamification" of Scotland, were described as "disgraceful" by politicians who also called for the event to be banned.
The SDL has said it intends to hold a "peaceful vigil at the monument, which was built in memory of the 270 people who lost their lives when Pan Am 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in 1988.
The organisation, which has been accused of being racist and fascist, has also chosen the venue in an attempt to get back at the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who spoke against the SDL at a recent Scotland United Rally held in Edinburgh. (...)
In the publicity for the Lockerbie march, the SDL referred to MacAskill's decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent convicted of the bombing.
"This is also a protest against the traitor Kenny MacAskill who denies the SDL free speech and defended the release of the vermin responsible for the Lockerbie outrage," the SDL said.
MacAskill's spokesman said: "It is hard to see how these people with their appalling and racist views could have sunk any lower, but that is what they have done.
Regardless of whether people supported Kenny MacAskill's difficult decision or disagreed with it, people in Lockerbie and across Scotland will come together to oppose this small unrepresentative group, and their disgraceful plans."
Mike Russell, the education secretary and South of Scotland MSP, said the rally was an obscene attempt to exploit the long suffering people of Lockerbie.
[The report on this matter in the News of the World can be read here.]
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Lockerbie bomber may beat cancer, say family
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Daily Mail. It reads in part:]
Freed from his life sentence, the Lockerbie bomber was sent home by the Scots on compassionate grounds because he had 'just three months' to live. (...)
Yesterday, his elderly father even held out the prospect of him beating the prostate cancer that doctors said would kill him by last Christmas.
Mr Ali al-Megrahi believes that good genes, 'positive thinking' and alternative medicines could explain his son's remarkable survival.
Megrahi, 57, no longer receives hospital treatment after ending a course of chemotherapy.
Last night, the British cancer specialist who gave the three-month prognosis was forced to defend his prediction. (...)
His father, who is in his early 80s and keeps a vigil at his son's side in the family's plush villa in the capital Tripoli, still believes a 'miracle' could happen.
He said: 'A close relative was diagnosed with a similar disease and he was treated and recovered completely. We hope that Abdelbaset recovers his health as well.
'I think that the sick are not just cured by medicine, but also by having a high morale and a sense of freedom, and these were not available to Abdelbaset in prison.'
Megrahi receives 24-hour nursing care and, though often heavily sedated, receives well-wishers.
The relaxed, peaceful atmosphere has enabled him to more than double his original survival prognosis, and he says he is 'inspired and feeling very positive' thanks to the support of family and friends. (...)
Last July, the Libyan government paid for Megrahi to be examined by three cancer specialists, among them British expert Professor Karol Sikora. It was their prognosis that won his freedom.
Professor Sikora told the Mail: 'I am very surprised that he is still alive. He is not receiving any active treatment. The latest information I have from Tripoli is that he is not a well man, and I suspect he will be dead within a month or so.'
Professor Sikora said he suspected Megrahi was hanging on because he had received a ' psychological' boost from being reunited with his family and countrymen.
Indeed the former Libyan secret service agent and his wife and five adult children are treated like royalty in Libya.
Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am 103, which represents U.S. relatives, said: 'His people tried to have us believe he had one foot in the grave.
'Then to hear that he is doing quite well medically and is living in a luxury villa makes them all the more frustrated.'
Freed from his life sentence, the Lockerbie bomber was sent home by the Scots on compassionate grounds because he had 'just three months' to live. (...)
Yesterday, his elderly father even held out the prospect of him beating the prostate cancer that doctors said would kill him by last Christmas.
Mr Ali al-Megrahi believes that good genes, 'positive thinking' and alternative medicines could explain his son's remarkable survival.
Megrahi, 57, no longer receives hospital treatment after ending a course of chemotherapy.
Last night, the British cancer specialist who gave the three-month prognosis was forced to defend his prediction. (...)
His father, who is in his early 80s and keeps a vigil at his son's side in the family's plush villa in the capital Tripoli, still believes a 'miracle' could happen.
He said: 'A close relative was diagnosed with a similar disease and he was treated and recovered completely. We hope that Abdelbaset recovers his health as well.
'I think that the sick are not just cured by medicine, but also by having a high morale and a sense of freedom, and these were not available to Abdelbaset in prison.'
Megrahi receives 24-hour nursing care and, though often heavily sedated, receives well-wishers.
The relaxed, peaceful atmosphere has enabled him to more than double his original survival prognosis, and he says he is 'inspired and feeling very positive' thanks to the support of family and friends. (...)
Last July, the Libyan government paid for Megrahi to be examined by three cancer specialists, among them British expert Professor Karol Sikora. It was their prognosis that won his freedom.
Professor Sikora told the Mail: 'I am very surprised that he is still alive. He is not receiving any active treatment. The latest information I have from Tripoli is that he is not a well man, and I suspect he will be dead within a month or so.'
Professor Sikora said he suspected Megrahi was hanging on because he had received a ' psychological' boost from being reunited with his family and countrymen.
Indeed the former Libyan secret service agent and his wife and five adult children are treated like royalty in Libya.
Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am 103, which represents U.S. relatives, said: 'His people tried to have us believe he had one foot in the grave.
'Then to hear that he is doing quite well medically and is living in a luxury villa makes them all the more frustrated.'
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Dartmouth College alumnus explains Lockerbie legacy
The legal aftermath of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing incident could serve as a model for establishing formal relationships with nations previously associated with terrorism, according to James Kreindler ... a specialist in aviation accident and terrorist litigation and featured speaker at the discussion, “Lessons from Lockerbie: Terrorism and International Law.” The discussion, which also included government professors Dean Lacy and Dirk Vandewalle, was held in the Haldeman Center on Tuesday [23 February].
The Lockerbie incident is the name given to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec 21, 1988. The attack, orchestrated by Libyan terrorists, resulted in the death of 270 individuals, most of whom were Americans. The resulting litigation — in which Kreindler’s law firm sued the Government of Libya and Pan Am airlines on behalf of victims’ families — resulted in the elimination of foreign nations’ sovereign immunity in private US lawsuits and was the first case in which a small group of plaintiffs led the development of a foreign policy issue, according to Kreindler.
The incident drove the international community to work toward the development of concrete policies on how to deal with international terrorism, Vandewalle said in an interview with The Dartmouth.
“Increasingly there is the sense that people who perpetuate [sic] terrorist acts should be accountable,” Vandewalle said. “We should go after these terrorists financially, especially if linked to governments.” (...)
At the time, the victims’ families could not sue Libya because foreign nations were protected by sovereign immunity, Kreindler said.
In 1996, several of the victims’ families lobbied Congress to change the law to permit the victims of terrorism and their families to sue countries that sponsor terrorist attacks, according to Kreindler. Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996, allowing the victims’ families to pursue their case against the Libyan government.
“The Libyans could never understand how 270 families could change the law in the United States,” Kreindler said.
Kreindler’s private firm, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, represented the victims’ families, he said.
“We sued Libya, accusing them of the largest murder of Americans in history,” Kreindler said.
Setting a new precedent, the Justice Department agreed to allow a private firm to pursue litigation against the Libyan government, according to Kreindler. After two years of negotiation, Libya agreed to pay damages of $10 million per death to the victims’ families under several conditions. Libya was to be removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and UN sanctions against Libya were to be lifted.
In 2006, the US government prematurely removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism before Libya made its final payment, leaving Libya with no incentive to pay the remainder of the payment, Kreindler said. At that time, Libya was involved in 22 other miscellaneous private lawsuits in US courts.
The subsequent Libya Claims Resolution Act allowed Libya to pay money into a fund for the victims’ families in exchange for the termination of all cases against Libya in US courts, according to Kreindler. The victims’ families received their final payment in December 2008, 20 years after the bombing.
Kreindler expressed confidence that, like Libya, several other countries on the list of state sponsors of terrorism will seek a “clean slate” once removed from the list. He added that these countries will likely be eager to pay into a global fund in exchange for termination of all US litigation.
“This will be the prototype for formalizing relationships with countries such as Iran and Syria,” Kreindler said.
Kreindler received the 2009 Trial Lawyer of the Year award for his work on the bombing.
[From a report on the website of The Dartmouth.]
The Lockerbie incident is the name given to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec 21, 1988. The attack, orchestrated by Libyan terrorists, resulted in the death of 270 individuals, most of whom were Americans. The resulting litigation — in which Kreindler’s law firm sued the Government of Libya and Pan Am airlines on behalf of victims’ families — resulted in the elimination of foreign nations’ sovereign immunity in private US lawsuits and was the first case in which a small group of plaintiffs led the development of a foreign policy issue, according to Kreindler.
The incident drove the international community to work toward the development of concrete policies on how to deal with international terrorism, Vandewalle said in an interview with The Dartmouth.
“Increasingly there is the sense that people who perpetuate [sic] terrorist acts should be accountable,” Vandewalle said. “We should go after these terrorists financially, especially if linked to governments.” (...)
At the time, the victims’ families could not sue Libya because foreign nations were protected by sovereign immunity, Kreindler said.
In 1996, several of the victims’ families lobbied Congress to change the law to permit the victims of terrorism and their families to sue countries that sponsor terrorist attacks, according to Kreindler. Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996, allowing the victims’ families to pursue their case against the Libyan government.
“The Libyans could never understand how 270 families could change the law in the United States,” Kreindler said.
Kreindler’s private firm, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, represented the victims’ families, he said.
“We sued Libya, accusing them of the largest murder of Americans in history,” Kreindler said.
Setting a new precedent, the Justice Department agreed to allow a private firm to pursue litigation against the Libyan government, according to Kreindler. After two years of negotiation, Libya agreed to pay damages of $10 million per death to the victims’ families under several conditions. Libya was to be removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and UN sanctions against Libya were to be lifted.
In 2006, the US government prematurely removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism before Libya made its final payment, leaving Libya with no incentive to pay the remainder of the payment, Kreindler said. At that time, Libya was involved in 22 other miscellaneous private lawsuits in US courts.
The subsequent Libya Claims Resolution Act allowed Libya to pay money into a fund for the victims’ families in exchange for the termination of all cases against Libya in US courts, according to Kreindler. The victims’ families received their final payment in December 2008, 20 years after the bombing.
Kreindler expressed confidence that, like Libya, several other countries on the list of state sponsors of terrorism will seek a “clean slate” once removed from the list. He added that these countries will likely be eager to pay into a global fund in exchange for termination of all US litigation.
“This will be the prototype for formalizing relationships with countries such as Iran and Syria,” Kreindler said.
Kreindler received the 2009 Trial Lawyer of the Year award for his work on the bombing.
[From a report on the website of The Dartmouth.]
Monday, 22 February 2010
Swire says Megrahi survival issue distracts from key question: "Was he guilty?"
[This is the headline over a report on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Dr Jim Swire, spokesman of UK Families Flight 103 says the present debate over the health prognosis of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi distracts from analysis of the "elephant in the room", the guilt or otherwise of Megrahi in the Pan Am 103 incident.
Swire points out that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated a miscarriage of justice may have been committed against Megrahi, and it is "desperately important that the conduct and outcome of his trial be re-examined".
"How can we have confidence in our legal system which has itself - through the SCCRC - expressed doubt over the case?" he asks.
"There is 'an elephant in the room' which we ignore, as Holyrood largely did, at our peril. On its flank is written 'WAS HE GUILTY?' We ignore it at the peril of having copious doodoo dumped upon all of us. That would be hard to scrape off."
Swire, a former GP, criticises the debate and points out that Megrahi's health will have naturally improved since his return to his family.
"The opinion of one of the UK's most distinguished oncologists was available to Kenny MacAskill. I have spoken to that specialist and confirmed his opinion. Estimates of likely life span are based on statistics and are pretty useless for application to an individual. 'How long have I got, doc?' is one of the hardest questions for a doc to answer," he says.
"Two highly relevant things happened to Meghrahi's health on his release:
1) he exchanged the stress of a prison cell for the love of his family;
2) he received unspecified intensive treatment in Tripoli.
"There is no way we can discover which of these is the more important in his prolonged survival. To those who wish him dead I would say 'send not to ask for whom the bell tolls' - you might be next.
"The real issue is whether he was ever guilty. The verdict however at present stands unchallenged."
Dr Jim Swire, spokesman of UK Families Flight 103 says the present debate over the health prognosis of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi distracts from analysis of the "elephant in the room", the guilt or otherwise of Megrahi in the Pan Am 103 incident.
Swire points out that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated a miscarriage of justice may have been committed against Megrahi, and it is "desperately important that the conduct and outcome of his trial be re-examined".
"How can we have confidence in our legal system which has itself - through the SCCRC - expressed doubt over the case?" he asks.
"There is 'an elephant in the room' which we ignore, as Holyrood largely did, at our peril. On its flank is written 'WAS HE GUILTY?' We ignore it at the peril of having copious doodoo dumped upon all of us. That would be hard to scrape off."
Swire, a former GP, criticises the debate and points out that Megrahi's health will have naturally improved since his return to his family.
"The opinion of one of the UK's most distinguished oncologists was available to Kenny MacAskill. I have spoken to that specialist and confirmed his opinion. Estimates of likely life span are based on statistics and are pretty useless for application to an individual. 'How long have I got, doc?' is one of the hardest questions for a doc to answer," he says.
"Two highly relevant things happened to Meghrahi's health on his release:
1) he exchanged the stress of a prison cell for the love of his family;
2) he received unspecified intensive treatment in Tripoli.
"There is no way we can discover which of these is the more important in his prolonged survival. To those who wish him dead I would say 'send not to ask for whom the bell tolls' - you might be next.
"The real issue is whether he was ever guilty. The verdict however at present stands unchallenged."
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Kenny MacAskill ‘ignored advice on Megrahi’
[This is the headline over a report in today's Scottish edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
Kenny MacAskill rejected legal advice from his own officials when he freed the Lockerbie bomber, new documents reveal.
Evidence uncovered six months after the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi shows the justice minister ruled out transferring the bomber to a jail in Libya, despite being told by government lawyers he was entitled to do so.
MacAskill said at the time he was prevented from using a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) because of an agreement struck between the British and American governments ahead of Megrahi’s trial in 1999 that, if convicted, he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland.
However, a memo to MacAskill on June 15 last year from George Burgess, the deputy director of the Scottish government’s criminal justice department, said that the agreement may have been intended to reassure Libya prior to handing over the Lockerbie suspects that they would not be jailed in America.
Burgess advised that the assurance “may be of less significance now” because a subsequent prisoner transfer deal had been agreed between Britain and Libya and “contrary to the views expressed by US officials and others, may not be sufficient reason alone to prevent transfer under a prisoner transfer agreement”.
In a second paper to MacAskill on August 14, when referring to US expectations that anyone found guilty would be expected to serve their sentence in Scotland, Burgess said: “It is doubtful that this would constitute a legally enforceable ‘legitimate expectation’.”
[Dr George Burgess is an administrative civil servant, not a lawyer. His views on matters of law are no more relevant than those of any other layman. Kenny MacAskill is a lawyer, and has access to professional legal advice from Scottish Government lawyers. This is yet another tendentious non-story from The Sunday Times.]
Kenny MacAskill rejected legal advice from his own officials when he freed the Lockerbie bomber, new documents reveal.
Evidence uncovered six months after the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi shows the justice minister ruled out transferring the bomber to a jail in Libya, despite being told by government lawyers he was entitled to do so.
MacAskill said at the time he was prevented from using a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) because of an agreement struck between the British and American governments ahead of Megrahi’s trial in 1999 that, if convicted, he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland.
However, a memo to MacAskill on June 15 last year from George Burgess, the deputy director of the Scottish government’s criminal justice department, said that the agreement may have been intended to reassure Libya prior to handing over the Lockerbie suspects that they would not be jailed in America.
Burgess advised that the assurance “may be of less significance now” because a subsequent prisoner transfer deal had been agreed between Britain and Libya and “contrary to the views expressed by US officials and others, may not be sufficient reason alone to prevent transfer under a prisoner transfer agreement”.
In a second paper to MacAskill on August 14, when referring to US expectations that anyone found guilty would be expected to serve their sentence in Scotland, Burgess said: “It is doubtful that this would constitute a legally enforceable ‘legitimate expectation’.”
[Dr George Burgess is an administrative civil servant, not a lawyer. His views on matters of law are no more relevant than those of any other layman. Kenny MacAskill is a lawyer, and has access to professional legal advice from Scottish Government lawyers. This is yet another tendentious non-story from The Sunday Times.]
Benefits of Megrahi release trickle out
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday by regular columnist Kenny Farquharson. It reads in part:]
The justification given [for releasing Megrahi] was "compassion", on the grounds that the former Libyan intelligence agent was dying of prostate cancer and had less than three months to live. The fact that Megrahi is still alive in Libya, under the care of top Italian cancer specialists, is obviously an embarrassment to the Scottish Government. The longer he lives, the harder it will be for MacAskill to avoid the accusation that he failed to make sufficient medical checks before waving the bomber off to Glasgow Airport.
But the six-month milestone is also an opportunity to look back on MacAskill's decision and reassess it with the benefit of some hindsight, testing the assertions and assumptions of an extraordinary moment when the world's eyes were on Scotland, judging us and our political masters.
I was opposed to Megrahi's release. There is still much about the decision that leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth. MacAskill's pious drivel about the bomber facing "a sentence imposed by a higher power" – despite the fact that MacAskill doesn't actually believe in God. (When he was sworn in as an MSP on 6 May, 2007, he did do by "solemn affirmation" rather than by oath.) And the way MacAskill tried to use a generalised assumption about "our beliefs" as a Scottish nation to justify his decision – thereby suggesting those who disagreed with him were somehow un-Scottish. That was low.
And yet, six months on, I have to accept that the consequences of Megrahi's release in geopolitical terms has been broadly positive. From Tripoli's perspective – regardless of what the UK government says – Megrahi's return was a crucial piece of the deal that brought Libya back into the international community. This was essential if the West was to have Libya's assistance in the war against jihadist terrorism. (...)
Looking back at MacAskill's statement last August, it's obvious there was a contradiction at the heart of what he was saying. On the one hand he insisted this was simply a procedural Scottish prison service matter where was he was obliged to follow due process. And yet, just moments later, he said: "This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government." This was stating the bleedin' obvious. MacAskill had received a letter from Jack Straw in December 2007 emphasising the "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in Megrahi being allowed to go home.
MacAskill, it seems to me, was all too aware of the international ramifications of his actions. What if he insisted Megrahi die in jail? Could that decision cause the notoriously mercurial Gaddafi to scupper talks with the West, raising the prospect of Libya returning to its rogue ways? MacAskill is the Scottish equivalent of the Home Secretary and, as such, has routine contact with the UK security services. Is it conceivable that he took his decision without seeking guidance on the international security ramifications? Was he blind to the risk that Scotland could be seen as a country that made the world a more dangerous place?
There were also economic considerations. A deal with Libya was expected to pave the way for oil exploration contracts with BP worth more than £500million. What if a refusal to release Megrahi deprived British oil companies – all with large Scottish interests and expertise – of hundreds of millions of pounds of work?
I simply don't believe that MacAskill ignored all these issues. I suspect history will judge that he did what he realised was necessary for the greater global good, and presented it to the world as a simple matter of prison service bureaucracy and Brigadoon moral philosophy. Hey presto, on 29 October last year, a few weeks after Gaddafi returned from New York, BP announced it was to start exploratory offshore and onshore drilling for oil in Libya.
One consequence of the bomber's release was, of course, less fortuitous: the damage done to US-Scottish relations, with Barack Obama personally upbraiding the Scottish Government, and the American public reacting with baffled anger. While this may have made the US State Department cooler towards Scottish Nationalism, I doubt very much if this will have any lasting effect on the strong and robust ties that bind Scotland and America. A skirl of pipes and a swing of the kilt and they'll forgive us anything, won't they?
So, six months later, have I changed my mind? No, but I find myself in a curious position.
I still don't believe MacAskill should have released Megrahi – and yet I accept it's good that he did.
Such is the moral maze.
[Alan Taylor's Diary in today's edition of The Sunday Herald contains the following paragraph:]
My dear chum Kenny MacAskill, (...) Meenister for Bad People, continues to take pelters for releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the so-called Lockerbie bomber, in order that he could go home and expire. That was six months ago, when Mr Megrahi was given three months tops to live. That he has lived twice that length of time is beginning to embarrass Mr MacAskill, who is now credited with a power to heal not seen since Jesus of Nazareth bestrode the globe. It is a mark of how sick a society we have become that we cannot wait until a man who continues to protest his innocence dies for our convenience. One who is impatient for Mr Megrahi to do the decent thing is Bill Aitken, a Dodo EmSPee, who wants to know exactly how long Mr Megrahi has got and what’s keeping him ticking. One suspects that Mr Aitken in his heart of hearts, assuming he has one, does not believe there is anything seriously wrong with Mr Megrahi. The more one thinks about Mr Aitken the more one’s will to live weakens.
The justification given [for releasing Megrahi] was "compassion", on the grounds that the former Libyan intelligence agent was dying of prostate cancer and had less than three months to live. The fact that Megrahi is still alive in Libya, under the care of top Italian cancer specialists, is obviously an embarrassment to the Scottish Government. The longer he lives, the harder it will be for MacAskill to avoid the accusation that he failed to make sufficient medical checks before waving the bomber off to Glasgow Airport.
But the six-month milestone is also an opportunity to look back on MacAskill's decision and reassess it with the benefit of some hindsight, testing the assertions and assumptions of an extraordinary moment when the world's eyes were on Scotland, judging us and our political masters.
I was opposed to Megrahi's release. There is still much about the decision that leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth. MacAskill's pious drivel about the bomber facing "a sentence imposed by a higher power" – despite the fact that MacAskill doesn't actually believe in God. (When he was sworn in as an MSP on 6 May, 2007, he did do by "solemn affirmation" rather than by oath.) And the way MacAskill tried to use a generalised assumption about "our beliefs" as a Scottish nation to justify his decision – thereby suggesting those who disagreed with him were somehow un-Scottish. That was low.
And yet, six months on, I have to accept that the consequences of Megrahi's release in geopolitical terms has been broadly positive. From Tripoli's perspective – regardless of what the UK government says – Megrahi's return was a crucial piece of the deal that brought Libya back into the international community. This was essential if the West was to have Libya's assistance in the war against jihadist terrorism. (...)
Looking back at MacAskill's statement last August, it's obvious there was a contradiction at the heart of what he was saying. On the one hand he insisted this was simply a procedural Scottish prison service matter where was he was obliged to follow due process. And yet, just moments later, he said: "This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government." This was stating the bleedin' obvious. MacAskill had received a letter from Jack Straw in December 2007 emphasising the "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in Megrahi being allowed to go home.
MacAskill, it seems to me, was all too aware of the international ramifications of his actions. What if he insisted Megrahi die in jail? Could that decision cause the notoriously mercurial Gaddafi to scupper talks with the West, raising the prospect of Libya returning to its rogue ways? MacAskill is the Scottish equivalent of the Home Secretary and, as such, has routine contact with the UK security services. Is it conceivable that he took his decision without seeking guidance on the international security ramifications? Was he blind to the risk that Scotland could be seen as a country that made the world a more dangerous place?
There were also economic considerations. A deal with Libya was expected to pave the way for oil exploration contracts with BP worth more than £500million. What if a refusal to release Megrahi deprived British oil companies – all with large Scottish interests and expertise – of hundreds of millions of pounds of work?
I simply don't believe that MacAskill ignored all these issues. I suspect history will judge that he did what he realised was necessary for the greater global good, and presented it to the world as a simple matter of prison service bureaucracy and Brigadoon moral philosophy. Hey presto, on 29 October last year, a few weeks after Gaddafi returned from New York, BP announced it was to start exploratory offshore and onshore drilling for oil in Libya.
One consequence of the bomber's release was, of course, less fortuitous: the damage done to US-Scottish relations, with Barack Obama personally upbraiding the Scottish Government, and the American public reacting with baffled anger. While this may have made the US State Department cooler towards Scottish Nationalism, I doubt very much if this will have any lasting effect on the strong and robust ties that bind Scotland and America. A skirl of pipes and a swing of the kilt and they'll forgive us anything, won't they?
So, six months later, have I changed my mind? No, but I find myself in a curious position.
I still don't believe MacAskill should have released Megrahi – and yet I accept it's good that he did.
Such is the moral maze.
[Alan Taylor's Diary in today's edition of The Sunday Herald contains the following paragraph:]
My dear chum Kenny MacAskill, (...) Meenister for Bad People, continues to take pelters for releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the so-called Lockerbie bomber, in order that he could go home and expire. That was six months ago, when Mr Megrahi was given three months tops to live. That he has lived twice that length of time is beginning to embarrass Mr MacAskill, who is now credited with a power to heal not seen since Jesus of Nazareth bestrode the globe. It is a mark of how sick a society we have become that we cannot wait until a man who continues to protest his innocence dies for our convenience. One who is impatient for Mr Megrahi to do the decent thing is Bill Aitken, a Dodo EmSPee, who wants to know exactly how long Mr Megrahi has got and what’s keeping him ticking. One suspects that Mr Aitken in his heart of hearts, assuming he has one, does not believe there is anything seriously wrong with Mr Megrahi. The more one thinks about Mr Aitken the more one’s will to live weakens.
Megrahi sneakily refuses to die on schedule
[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, headlined Lockerbie bomber Megrahi living in luxury villa six months after being at 'death's door'.]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, no longer receives hospital treatment after ending the course of chemotherapy that he had been given after returning to his homeland last August.
Professor Karol Sikora, the London-based doctor who examined Megrahi and predicted he would be dead by last October, admitted this weekend that the fact the bomber is still alive might be "difficult" for the families of the 270 victims of the attack. (...)
The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time [three months], or less, to live. [RB: There is no rule of law to this effect in Scotland: it is the normal -- but not invariable -- practice.] (...)
One leading prostate cancer specialist cast serious doubt yesterday on the wisdom of predicting that Megrahi had only three months to live – when a patient still had to undergo chemotherapy. Dr Chris Parker said it was extremely difficult to give an accurate prognosis for individual patients. "Studies show experts are very poor at trying to predict how long an individual patient will live for," he warned.
Megrahi received the chemotherapy drug Docetaxel – trade name Taxotere – shortly after returning to Libya.
Dr Parker, who is with the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital, said: "The average prognosis for survival after Docetaxel would be 12 months.
"It can vary enormously but it would be very unusual to live beyond two years." (...)
Megrahi, is now living in a spacious two-storey villa with his wife and their five grown-up children in a prosperous suburb of Tripoli, the Libyan capital. (...)
Prof Sikora, one of the examining doctors who was paid a consultancy fee last July to examine Megrahi, told The Sunday Telegraph this weekend: "My information from Tripoli is that it's not going to be long [before Megrahi dies].
"They stopped any active treatment in December and he has just been going downhill very slowly at home. He is on high doses of morphine [a painkiller] and it's any day now."
Prof Sikora said that he suspected that Megrahi was still alive because he had received a "psychological" boost from returning to his homeland and being reunited with his family.
"It's stimulated him to have a remarkable [short-term] recovery," he said. "It's difficult. The choice offered by the letter of the law was either three months to live, or nothing. You couldn't have a sliding scale."
Some prostate cancer patients have lived for years longer that their doctors predicted.
Prof Sikora said it was just possible that Megrahi would be alive in several years time but added: "It's highly unlikely. There is a 90 per cent chance he will die in the next few weeks.
"He is relatively young and has very aggressive, fast-moving disease."
Megrahi has always denied any involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. He withdrew his second appeal against conviction just two days before he was allowed to return to Libya.
Those close to him say he did so reluctantly because he was convinced it would improve his chances of being freed from a Scottish jail.
Megrahi could have been released on compassionate grounds without dropping his appeal – but he could not have been freed under a prisoner exchange programme if legal action was ongoing.
Until the last moment, the authorities made it clear they were considering both options.
Professor Sikora had a message to the relatives of the Lockerbie tragedy who are angered by Megrahi's release: "The quality of his life is not good – he is a dying man.
"Quite frankly, as an act of mercy, it is better that he dies at home rather than in prison."
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, no longer receives hospital treatment after ending the course of chemotherapy that he had been given after returning to his homeland last August.
Professor Karol Sikora, the London-based doctor who examined Megrahi and predicted he would be dead by last October, admitted this weekend that the fact the bomber is still alive might be "difficult" for the families of the 270 victims of the attack. (...)
The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time [three months], or less, to live. [RB: There is no rule of law to this effect in Scotland: it is the normal -- but not invariable -- practice.] (...)
One leading prostate cancer specialist cast serious doubt yesterday on the wisdom of predicting that Megrahi had only three months to live – when a patient still had to undergo chemotherapy. Dr Chris Parker said it was extremely difficult to give an accurate prognosis for individual patients. "Studies show experts are very poor at trying to predict how long an individual patient will live for," he warned.
Megrahi received the chemotherapy drug Docetaxel – trade name Taxotere – shortly after returning to Libya.
Dr Parker, who is with the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital, said: "The average prognosis for survival after Docetaxel would be 12 months.
"It can vary enormously but it would be very unusual to live beyond two years." (...)
Megrahi, is now living in a spacious two-storey villa with his wife and their five grown-up children in a prosperous suburb of Tripoli, the Libyan capital. (...)
Prof Sikora, one of the examining doctors who was paid a consultancy fee last July to examine Megrahi, told The Sunday Telegraph this weekend: "My information from Tripoli is that it's not going to be long [before Megrahi dies].
"They stopped any active treatment in December and he has just been going downhill very slowly at home. He is on high doses of morphine [a painkiller] and it's any day now."
Prof Sikora said that he suspected that Megrahi was still alive because he had received a "psychological" boost from returning to his homeland and being reunited with his family.
"It's stimulated him to have a remarkable [short-term] recovery," he said. "It's difficult. The choice offered by the letter of the law was either three months to live, or nothing. You couldn't have a sliding scale."
Some prostate cancer patients have lived for years longer that their doctors predicted.
Prof Sikora said it was just possible that Megrahi would be alive in several years time but added: "It's highly unlikely. There is a 90 per cent chance he will die in the next few weeks.
"He is relatively young and has very aggressive, fast-moving disease."
Megrahi has always denied any involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. He withdrew his second appeal against conviction just two days before he was allowed to return to Libya.
Those close to him say he did so reluctantly because he was convinced it would improve his chances of being freed from a Scottish jail.
Megrahi could have been released on compassionate grounds without dropping his appeal – but he could not have been freed under a prisoner exchange programme if legal action was ongoing.
Until the last moment, the authorities made it clear they were considering both options.
Professor Sikora had a message to the relatives of the Lockerbie tragedy who are angered by Megrahi's release: "The quality of his life is not good – he is a dying man.
"Quite frankly, as an act of mercy, it is better that he dies at home rather than in prison."
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Lockerbie bomber Megrahi release reaches six-month milestone
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
Families who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie atrocity have called for the bomber's medical records to be published –exactly six months after he was freed.
US victims of the bombing said they wanted to see all the medical evidence that saw Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi released on the basis that he only had three months to live.
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill cited the three-month prognosis when he released Megrahi on compassionate grounds on 20 August last year.
Rosemary Wolfe, who lost her step-daughter Miriam, 20, in the catastrophe, said: "The fact that he is still alive does not surprise me. I've never thought he was at death's door when he was released. It is just tragic that his release happened and I don't know of any families in the US who think differently.
"To me, this was not a question of compassion, this was a question of justice and keeping the murderer of 270 people in a major international crime in prison.
"Sadly, it is too late for anything to be done about this. But I would like to see MacAskill release all the medical records on this.
"I have requested this under the Freedom of Information Act, long before the decision was made, but I have had no response."
Yesterday, Mr MacAskill's decision was also condemned by Labour and the Conservatives.
Labour leader Iain Gray said: "The decision to release Megrahi was a grave error of judgment. Kenny MacAskill should have properly weighed the seriousness of Megrahi's crime and long sentence against his compassion for the victims of the Lockerbie bombing."
Conservative justice spokesman Bill Aitken said: "Alex Salmond's SNP refused to publish the independent medical advice which they used to free him, but the time has come for that to change."
[The comments from readers that follow the report are interesting as giving a flavour of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here.]
Families who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie atrocity have called for the bomber's medical records to be published –exactly six months after he was freed.
US victims of the bombing said they wanted to see all the medical evidence that saw Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi released on the basis that he only had three months to live.
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill cited the three-month prognosis when he released Megrahi on compassionate grounds on 20 August last year.
Rosemary Wolfe, who lost her step-daughter Miriam, 20, in the catastrophe, said: "The fact that he is still alive does not surprise me. I've never thought he was at death's door when he was released. It is just tragic that his release happened and I don't know of any families in the US who think differently.
"To me, this was not a question of compassion, this was a question of justice and keeping the murderer of 270 people in a major international crime in prison.
"Sadly, it is too late for anything to be done about this. But I would like to see MacAskill release all the medical records on this.
"I have requested this under the Freedom of Information Act, long before the decision was made, but I have had no response."
Yesterday, Mr MacAskill's decision was also condemned by Labour and the Conservatives.
Labour leader Iain Gray said: "The decision to release Megrahi was a grave error of judgment. Kenny MacAskill should have properly weighed the seriousness of Megrahi's crime and long sentence against his compassion for the victims of the Lockerbie bombing."
Conservative justice spokesman Bill Aitken said: "Alex Salmond's SNP refused to publish the independent medical advice which they used to free him, but the time has come for that to change."
[The comments from readers that follow the report are interesting as giving a flavour of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here.]
Friday, 19 February 2010
Libya paid out on Lockerbie 'to settle row': Kadhafi
[The following are excerpts from a report published today by Agence France Presse.]
Libya agreed to compensate Lockerbie relatives to resolve a diplomatic row, not because Tripoli was behind the 1988 bombing, Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi has said in a television interview.
"This is a peaceful settlement to resolve the problems between us," Kadhafi told Australian television channel SBS's Dateline programme, to be aired on Sunday.
He said Tripoli had agreed to the settlement to abide by a court ruling that found Libya guilty of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people.
"We, at the end, accepted the judgement that was made, even though it is not a legal judgement but a political one," Kadhafi said in a transcript of the interview released by SBS ahead of the broadcast. (...)
Kadhafi denied Megrahi, who was controversially freed from his Scottish prison in August 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer and was given only months to live, was a Libyan agent.
"He is not an intelligence officer. He is a university professor," Kadhafi said.
The attack strained Libya's relations with the West, and in 1992 the UN imposed sanctions to force the handover of Megrahi and another suspect, who was acquitted by the court.
More than two years later, Libya took responsibility for the bombing in a letter to the UN Security Council, and signed a 2.7 billion-dollar deal to compensate families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.
Kadhafi said in the interview that "nobody accepts actions against civilian targets and downing planes."
He added Libya was blamed for the bombing because, "at the time, they'd blame everything on Libya" because it was leading an international liberation movement against the West.
[The only evidence at the Zeist trial that Megrahi was an intelligence agent came from the Libyan defector and CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka. The court rejected Giaka's evidence on every other issue on the grounds that he was a fantasist and was actuated by mercenary motives. The judges gave no reasons for accepting his evidence regarding Megrahi's alleged position as a Libyan intelligence operative.]
Libya agreed to compensate Lockerbie relatives to resolve a diplomatic row, not because Tripoli was behind the 1988 bombing, Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi has said in a television interview.
"This is a peaceful settlement to resolve the problems between us," Kadhafi told Australian television channel SBS's Dateline programme, to be aired on Sunday.
He said Tripoli had agreed to the settlement to abide by a court ruling that found Libya guilty of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people.
"We, at the end, accepted the judgement that was made, even though it is not a legal judgement but a political one," Kadhafi said in a transcript of the interview released by SBS ahead of the broadcast. (...)
Kadhafi denied Megrahi, who was controversially freed from his Scottish prison in August 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer and was given only months to live, was a Libyan agent.
"He is not an intelligence officer. He is a university professor," Kadhafi said.
The attack strained Libya's relations with the West, and in 1992 the UN imposed sanctions to force the handover of Megrahi and another suspect, who was acquitted by the court.
More than two years later, Libya took responsibility for the bombing in a letter to the UN Security Council, and signed a 2.7 billion-dollar deal to compensate families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.
Kadhafi said in the interview that "nobody accepts actions against civilian targets and downing planes."
He added Libya was blamed for the bombing because, "at the time, they'd blame everything on Libya" because it was leading an international liberation movement against the West.
[The only evidence at the Zeist trial that Megrahi was an intelligence agent came from the Libyan defector and CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka. The court rejected Giaka's evidence on every other issue on the grounds that he was a fantasist and was actuated by mercenary motives. The judges gave no reasons for accepting his evidence regarding Megrahi's alleged position as a Libyan intelligence operative.]
A deep shadow
[This is the headline over my most recent column in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Despite willingness expressed by both the Scottish and UK Governments to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, neither has initiated one, and each appear to expect the other to do so. Professor Robert Black QC says the complicated comedy of manners and faux fidelity hides the knowledge of both that the actings of their legal advisers are fatally compromised.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal because he thought it would maximise his chances of being allowed home to Libya to die (by keeping open the possibility of prisoner transfer). In fact, what Kenny MacAskill did was to release him on compassionate grounds, a procedure which, unlike prisoner transfer, does not require that there be no live legal proceedings. But Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that this was the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would jump.
The abandonment of the appeal did not signify that he now accepted the justness of his conviction. Far from it. In the statement released on his departure he said: “I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair. In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description. I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable. To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.”
So the concerns about the conviction felt by many, including the SCCRC, remain. Until those concerns are officially addressed a deep shadow will hover over the Scottish criminal justice system, both domestically and internationally. It is blindingly obvious that the shadow can now best be removed by the establishment of an independent inquiry into the whole circumstances of the Lockerbie disaster.
The Scottish Government says that it favours an inquiry, but that it should be set up by the UK Government. The UK Government says that since all the legal proceedings relating to Lockerbie were under Scottish jurisdiction, any inquiry must be a matter for the Scottish Government. It is difficult to disagree with the following passage from an editorial in The Herald on 25 October 2009: “Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because 'that’s the way our system works', while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened 'by those with required powers'. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.”
If neither government is opposed to an inquiry, but only at odds about who should convene it, why has the problem not been resolved (as it was in relation to Stockline) by setting up a joint inquiry under section 32 of the Inquiries Act 2005? Could the answer be the legal advice that both governments are receiving?
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the Scottish Government, from whom would the Scottish Ministers seek advice on the legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal legal adviser, the Lord Advocate. If such an inquiry were to be set up, one of the issues at the forefront of its terms of reference would have to be the conduct of the prosecution before, during and after the Lockerbie trial. Who is the head of the Scottish prosecution system? The Lord Advocate, of course.
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the UK Government, from whom would UK Ministers seek advice on the Scottish legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal Scottish legal adviser, the Advocate General for Scotland. Who was it who in the recent appeal fought valiantly and successfully to keep documents out of the hands of Megrahi’s legal team? The Advocate General for Scotland, of course.
Just the teensiest suspicion of a conflict of interest here, perhaps?
Despite willingness expressed by both the Scottish and UK Governments to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, neither has initiated one, and each appear to expect the other to do so. Professor Robert Black QC says the complicated comedy of manners and faux fidelity hides the knowledge of both that the actings of their legal advisers are fatally compromised.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal because he thought it would maximise his chances of being allowed home to Libya to die (by keeping open the possibility of prisoner transfer). In fact, what Kenny MacAskill did was to release him on compassionate grounds, a procedure which, unlike prisoner transfer, does not require that there be no live legal proceedings. But Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that this was the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would jump.
The abandonment of the appeal did not signify that he now accepted the justness of his conviction. Far from it. In the statement released on his departure he said: “I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair. In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description. I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable. To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.”
So the concerns about the conviction felt by many, including the SCCRC, remain. Until those concerns are officially addressed a deep shadow will hover over the Scottish criminal justice system, both domestically and internationally. It is blindingly obvious that the shadow can now best be removed by the establishment of an independent inquiry into the whole circumstances of the Lockerbie disaster.
The Scottish Government says that it favours an inquiry, but that it should be set up by the UK Government. The UK Government says that since all the legal proceedings relating to Lockerbie were under Scottish jurisdiction, any inquiry must be a matter for the Scottish Government. It is difficult to disagree with the following passage from an editorial in The Herald on 25 October 2009: “Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because 'that’s the way our system works', while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened 'by those with required powers'. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.”
If neither government is opposed to an inquiry, but only at odds about who should convene it, why has the problem not been resolved (as it was in relation to Stockline) by setting up a joint inquiry under section 32 of the Inquiries Act 2005? Could the answer be the legal advice that both governments are receiving?
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the Scottish Government, from whom would the Scottish Ministers seek advice on the legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal legal adviser, the Lord Advocate. If such an inquiry were to be set up, one of the issues at the forefront of its terms of reference would have to be the conduct of the prosecution before, during and after the Lockerbie trial. Who is the head of the Scottish prosecution system? The Lord Advocate, of course.
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the UK Government, from whom would UK Ministers seek advice on the Scottish legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal Scottish legal adviser, the Advocate General for Scotland. Who was it who in the recent appeal fought valiantly and successfully to keep documents out of the hands of Megrahi’s legal team? The Advocate General for Scotland, of course.
Just the teensiest suspicion of a conflict of interest here, perhaps?
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Top pathologist supports Lockerbie bomber's release
[This is the headline over a report on the STV News website. It reads in part:]
The senior pathologist who supervised the examination of more than 250 victims of the Lockerbie bombing has spoken out in support of the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
This weekend marks six months since the Libyan was freed on compassionate grounds after he was judged by prison medics to have less than three months to live.
Now, in an exclusive interview with STV News, Professor Anthony Busuttil said he was "not remotely surprised" Megrahi has outlived the short prognosis that led to his release.
Professor Busuttil supervised the team of pathologists which examined the bodies of more than 250 victims at Lockerbie. He has vast medical experience, having investigated more than 900 murders during a long career.
Megrahi's release was criticised by many - particularly by relatives of the American victims.
However, Professor Busuttil, who witnessed the carnage at Lockerbie first hand, says it was the right thing to do - even though doctors could not say with absolute certainty how long Megrahi would live.
Megrahi started to undergo chemotherapy on his return to Libya and has not been seen in public since last September. Professor Busuttil says he has learned through contacts that the Lockerbie bomber is receiving the highest standards of care.
Professor Busuttil told STV News: " ... Some people get slightly better for a period before they get worse again, so it's part and parcel of how the disease affects the human body."
Asked if it was possible Megrahi would live for more than the three-month prognosis, he added: "I would have thought so. No clinician can tell you, look you've got six weeks and then after six weeks, you drop dead.
"I very much suspect that he is getting the best treatment that is available worldwide.
"He is going to die quite soon. It is appropriate to show compassion at that particular stage in life. I think it shows a strength of a country which is able to put away vengeance."
The senior pathologist who supervised the examination of more than 250 victims of the Lockerbie bombing has spoken out in support of the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
This weekend marks six months since the Libyan was freed on compassionate grounds after he was judged by prison medics to have less than three months to live.
Now, in an exclusive interview with STV News, Professor Anthony Busuttil said he was "not remotely surprised" Megrahi has outlived the short prognosis that led to his release.
Professor Busuttil supervised the team of pathologists which examined the bodies of more than 250 victims at Lockerbie. He has vast medical experience, having investigated more than 900 murders during a long career.
Megrahi's release was criticised by many - particularly by relatives of the American victims.
However, Professor Busuttil, who witnessed the carnage at Lockerbie first hand, says it was the right thing to do - even though doctors could not say with absolute certainty how long Megrahi would live.
Megrahi started to undergo chemotherapy on his return to Libya and has not been seen in public since last September. Professor Busuttil says he has learned through contacts that the Lockerbie bomber is receiving the highest standards of care.
Professor Busuttil told STV News: " ... Some people get slightly better for a period before they get worse again, so it's part and parcel of how the disease affects the human body."
Asked if it was possible Megrahi would live for more than the three-month prognosis, he added: "I would have thought so. No clinician can tell you, look you've got six weeks and then after six weeks, you drop dead.
"I very much suspect that he is getting the best treatment that is available worldwide.
"He is going to die quite soon. It is appropriate to show compassion at that particular stage in life. I think it shows a strength of a country which is able to put away vengeance."
Council rejects calls to release al-Megrahi medical records
[This is the headline over a report in The Times of 16 February. It reads in part:]
The council charged with monitoring the health of the Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has refused to publish details of his medical condition, angering families of his victims.
Al-Megrahi, East Renfrewshire Council has claimed, has a right to confidentiality and should be treated like any other former prisoner. (...)
Six months [after his release], opposition MSPs, have been calling for evidence that al-Megrahi is close to death, but East Renfrewshire Council said yesterday that monthly reports they receive from Libya about his health, used to update the Scottish government, were confidential — just as they would be for any other criminal they were supervising.
A council spokesman said: “They are private and confidential medical reports and we won’t be releasing them. We wouldn’t release medical reports for any client and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client like any other.”
He added that al-Megrahi had satisfied to date the conditions attached to his release, namely that he stays in regular contact — usually twice a month, but there is no specific timescale identified in his release licence — and does not leave Libya. The Times understands that al-Megrahi is staying at his home in Tripoli, where he is receiving palliative care.
Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “It is almost bizarre to suggest that the biggest mass murderer in Scottish history should be just like any other client. He is not. The public have a right to know what is going on.”
The council charged with monitoring the health of the Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has refused to publish details of his medical condition, angering families of his victims.
Al-Megrahi, East Renfrewshire Council has claimed, has a right to confidentiality and should be treated like any other former prisoner. (...)
Six months [after his release], opposition MSPs, have been calling for evidence that al-Megrahi is close to death, but East Renfrewshire Council said yesterday that monthly reports they receive from Libya about his health, used to update the Scottish government, were confidential — just as they would be for any other criminal they were supervising.
A council spokesman said: “They are private and confidential medical reports and we won’t be releasing them. We wouldn’t release medical reports for any client and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client like any other.”
He added that al-Megrahi had satisfied to date the conditions attached to his release, namely that he stays in regular contact — usually twice a month, but there is no specific timescale identified in his release licence — and does not leave Libya. The Times understands that al-Megrahi is staying at his home in Tripoli, where he is receiving palliative care.
Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “It is almost bizarre to suggest that the biggest mass murderer in Scottish history should be just like any other client. He is not. The public have a right to know what is going on.”
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Confound these witch-hunters
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Kevin McKenna in today's edition of The Observer. It reads in part:]
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when we became a nation of puritanical witch-finders. Perhaps we always have been. (...)
An unwanted by-product of devolution and the establishment of the parliament at Holyrood has been an insidious and nasty new puritanism. The gentlemen and ladies of the press, those fearless upholders and arbiters of morality, decency and all that is virtuous in the land, are constantly awake, looking for evidence of public servants failing to live up to the high moral standards that our newspapers have set.
MSPs of all parties, eager not to appear lacking in moral fibre and backbone, join in the chorus: "Kill the witch"!
Last week it was Nicola Sturgeon's turn to wear the black, pointy hat. The health secretary and MSP for Glasgow Govan had written to a sheriff asking him to show clemency to one of her constituents, Mr Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of an £80,000 benefits fraud. Despite the fact that this individual had had a previous conviction for benefits fraud 14 years ago, she asked that he be given a non-custodial sentence and cited Rauf's serious illness and his work in the community.
Sturgeon will have been mindful that her primary parliamentary duty is to each of her constituents' needs when Mr Rauf approached her. She has not broken any law, nor has she stood to gain directly or indirectly from her action. Indeed she may even have had a presentiment of the moral firestorm her intervention would provoke, but felt unable nevertheless to break her bond of trust, as an elected member of parliament to those who voted for her.
Her letter to Sheriff Alan McKenzie at Glasgow Sheriff Court merely appealed to compassion, forgiveness and charity. These were the same virtues cited by her colleague, the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill last September when he chose to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer and the justice secretary simply felt that, in the circumstances, it was right and proper to transfer him to Libya to spend what remains of his life there. MacAskill's decision was what we ought to expect of an enlightened and compassionate society that seeks, whenever possible, to avoid vengeance. Ms Sturgeon's request is cast from the same mould. And, in any event, it would not unduly influence an experienced and good sheriff.
[Nicola Sturgeon MSP is Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government.]
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when we became a nation of puritanical witch-finders. Perhaps we always have been. (...)
An unwanted by-product of devolution and the establishment of the parliament at Holyrood has been an insidious and nasty new puritanism. The gentlemen and ladies of the press, those fearless upholders and arbiters of morality, decency and all that is virtuous in the land, are constantly awake, looking for evidence of public servants failing to live up to the high moral standards that our newspapers have set.
MSPs of all parties, eager not to appear lacking in moral fibre and backbone, join in the chorus: "Kill the witch"!
Last week it was Nicola Sturgeon's turn to wear the black, pointy hat. The health secretary and MSP for Glasgow Govan had written to a sheriff asking him to show clemency to one of her constituents, Mr Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of an £80,000 benefits fraud. Despite the fact that this individual had had a previous conviction for benefits fraud 14 years ago, she asked that he be given a non-custodial sentence and cited Rauf's serious illness and his work in the community.
Sturgeon will have been mindful that her primary parliamentary duty is to each of her constituents' needs when Mr Rauf approached her. She has not broken any law, nor has she stood to gain directly or indirectly from her action. Indeed she may even have had a presentiment of the moral firestorm her intervention would provoke, but felt unable nevertheless to break her bond of trust, as an elected member of parliament to those who voted for her.
Her letter to Sheriff Alan McKenzie at Glasgow Sheriff Court merely appealed to compassion, forgiveness and charity. These were the same virtues cited by her colleague, the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill last September when he chose to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer and the justice secretary simply felt that, in the circumstances, it was right and proper to transfer him to Libya to spend what remains of his life there. MacAskill's decision was what we ought to expect of an enlightened and compassionate society that seeks, whenever possible, to avoid vengeance. Ms Sturgeon's request is cast from the same mould. And, in any event, it would not unduly influence an experienced and good sheriff.
[Nicola Sturgeon MSP is Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government.]
Nelson Mandela's rôle in brokering the Lockerbie trial
[In the course of a long article marking the twentieth anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990, on the website of Côte d'Ivoire television station Luambona TV, the following passage appears:]
Le président Mandela intervient également pour régler le procès des deux Libyens accusés par les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni de l’attentat de Lockerbie qui avait fait 270 victimes en [1988]. Dès 1992, Mandela propose de manière informelle au président George H.W. Bush de juger les Libyens dans un pays tiers. Bush accepte la proposition, ainsi que le président français, François Mitterrand, et le roi Juan Carlos 1er d’Espagne. En novembre 1994, six mois après son élection, Mandela propose que l’Afrique du Sud soit le pays qui héberge le procès, mais le Premier ministre britannique, John Major, rejette l’idée, disant que son gouvernement n’avait pas confiance en une cour de justice étrangère. Mandela renouvelle son offre trois ans plus tard à Tony Blair, en 1997. La même année, à la conférence des responsables des chefs de gouvernement du Commonwealth à Edinburgh, Mandela avertit qu’«aucune nation ne devrait être à la fois plaignante, procureur et juge.»
Un compromis est trouvé pour un procès aux Pays-Bas et le président Mandela commence les négociations avec le colonel Kadhafi pour la remise des deux accusés Megrahi et Fhimah, en avril 1999. Le 31 janvier 2001, Fhimah est acquitté, mais Megrahi est jugé coupable et condamné à 27 ans de prison. Nelson Mandela va le visiter en juin 2002 et dénonce ses conditions d’emprisonnement en isolement total. Megrahi est ensuite transféré dans une autre prison et n’est plus soumis à une incarcération en isolement.
[I have no doubt that President Mandela's influence and his interventions at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Edinburgh in October 1997 were crucial in persuading the recently-elected Labour Government to countenance a "neutral venue" solution to the Lockerbie impasse. Also of crucial importance was the press conference held by the group UK Families-Flight 103 in Edinburgh during the Meeting and the worldwide publicity that it generated.]
Le président Mandela intervient également pour régler le procès des deux Libyens accusés par les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni de l’attentat de Lockerbie qui avait fait 270 victimes en [1988]. Dès 1992, Mandela propose de manière informelle au président George H.W. Bush de juger les Libyens dans un pays tiers. Bush accepte la proposition, ainsi que le président français, François Mitterrand, et le roi Juan Carlos 1er d’Espagne. En novembre 1994, six mois après son élection, Mandela propose que l’Afrique du Sud soit le pays qui héberge le procès, mais le Premier ministre britannique, John Major, rejette l’idée, disant que son gouvernement n’avait pas confiance en une cour de justice étrangère. Mandela renouvelle son offre trois ans plus tard à Tony Blair, en 1997. La même année, à la conférence des responsables des chefs de gouvernement du Commonwealth à Edinburgh, Mandela avertit qu’«aucune nation ne devrait être à la fois plaignante, procureur et juge.»
Un compromis est trouvé pour un procès aux Pays-Bas et le président Mandela commence les négociations avec le colonel Kadhafi pour la remise des deux accusés Megrahi et Fhimah, en avril 1999. Le 31 janvier 2001, Fhimah est acquitté, mais Megrahi est jugé coupable et condamné à 27 ans de prison. Nelson Mandela va le visiter en juin 2002 et dénonce ses conditions d’emprisonnement en isolement total. Megrahi est ensuite transféré dans une autre prison et n’est plus soumis à une incarcération en isolement.
[I have no doubt that President Mandela's influence and his interventions at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Edinburgh in October 1997 were crucial in persuading the recently-elected Labour Government to countenance a "neutral venue" solution to the Lockerbie impasse. Also of crucial importance was the press conference held by the group UK Families-Flight 103 in Edinburgh during the Meeting and the worldwide publicity that it generated.]
Saturday, 13 February 2010
UK Tory leader on Megrahi release
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)."
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)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)