[This is the headline over an editorial in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
A small fortune in political capital has been made from the fact that, nearly a year after being released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is still alive. (...)
At the time, much was made of the suggestion from Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who was responsible for the decision, that Megrahi had only three months to live.
In fact, MacAskill chose his words very carefully. His statement read: “A three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate,” adding the rider: “He may die sooner – he may live longer.” In the event, the latter has prevailed, though news from Tripoli in recent days suggests Megrahi will die soon and is subject only to palliative care.
The fact that he has defied estimates of his limited life expectancy made at the time of his release in no way invalidates the Justice Secretary’s decision. Had Megrahi remained in Greenock Prison, he could not have received the treatment and care that a cancer patient requires. (...)
As the months have gone on, those who opposed the release have questioned the assumptions made about Megrahi’s life expectancy. Some have even suggested he is not suffering from cancer at all. Other critics have made much of statements from Dr Karol Sikora and other consultants, commissioned by the Libyan government last year to assess the prisoner’s condition. However, these were not the basis on which MacAskill made his decision. Rather, it was a report from Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care for the Scottish Prison Service, which collated the views of a number of specialists and consultants involved in Meg rahi’s care. They agreed his condition was terminal and was deteriorating. This remains the case and it is on this basis that his case met the criteria for compassionate release.
Whether or not these specialists predicted he would die within three months is both irrelevant and unlikely. No doctor can predict exactly when death will occur and patients with terminal conditions often defy the odds. For that reason, the demand from Labour’s Dr Richard Simpson, that a second opinion be sought on whether Megrahi definitely had less three months to live, was impractical.
MacAskill should not feel embarrassed that Megrahi has managed to cling to life for longer than his doctors expected. If he turns out to have been innocent, the decision not to compel him to die in prison and in pain will be deemed just as well as compassionate.
[In the same newspaper there is a report by Lucy Adams on the state of Mr Megrahi's health. The following are excerpts:]
The health of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has worsened and experts say “a cold could finish him off”.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan who was freed early from prison last August because he was expected to die within three months, has failed to respond to chemotherapy.
According to the latest bulletin about his condition, all treatment for prostate cancer has stopped and he is now receiving only palliative care.
Doctors are also said to be concerned that he is struggling to come to terms with his prognosis.
East Renfrewshire Council and the Scottish Government is sent a monthly report on Megrahi’s progress but there has been growing scepticism about the various medical views involved because the Libyan has survived for 11 months rather than three.
Last month Professor Karol Sikora, who examined Megrahi last summer and gave him less than three months to live, said he could last for up 10 years. Sikora was one of three doctors paid for by the Libyan Government to examine Megrahi.
However, his report has never been read by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who was pilloried internationally for choosing to grant him compassionate release. MacAskill made the decision based on a report by Dr Andrew Fraser, head of health at the Scottish Prison Service, which had itself been based upon the expert opinions of at least two UK consultants and the prison doctor. (...)
Doctors have suggested that he has lived far longer than expected because of the positive psychological impact of his release and return to his home and family, as well as the high level of medical attention he has received in Tripoli. (...)
It is thought that when he dies, medical reports will be released, though there are other documents unlikely to be released.
The Herald revealed last month that hundreds of pages of information, pinpointing why the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be granted a fresh appeal, will remain secret.
The Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police have all failed to give their consent to an official request to disclose the material, as has Megrahi.
The fact the official Lockerbie papers may never be published is likely to prove embarrassing for those who have not allowed disclosure and the ministers who suggested the papers would be published. It will also fuel the frustration of the families of the 270 victims who have waited more than 21 years for answers.
Megrahi was granted fresh leave to appeal in June 2007, based on the three-and-a-half-year probe by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, but the appeal suffered delays and last summer he dropped the case to improve his chances of returning home to Libya.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
The only US newspaper to acknowledge that doubters exist?
While some of the family members of Britons who were killed in the Lockerbie bombing supported Mr Megrahi’s release, in part because of lingering doubts about his guilt, the families of several American victims were dismayed by the decision. The fact that Mr Megrahi has not yet died from his illness nearly a year after his release was the subject of several recent reports on both sides of the Atlantic. One doctor who examined him before his release told London’s Sunday Times this month, “There was always a chance he could live for 10 years, 20 years.”
On Monday, Senator Lautenberg and three Democratic colleagues asked the State Department to press British authorities to open their own investigation into the release of Mr Megrahi, The Associated Press reported.
A spokesman for the State Department, PJ Crowley, said on Monday, “There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We’ve been on the Megrahi watch since that time.” He added, “Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103.”
[From a post on The New York Times's news blog, The Lede by the blog's editor, Robert Mackey.]
On Monday, Senator Lautenberg and three Democratic colleagues asked the State Department to press British authorities to open their own investigation into the release of Mr Megrahi, The Associated Press reported.
A spokesman for the State Department, PJ Crowley, said on Monday, “There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We’ve been on the Megrahi watch since that time.” He added, “Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103.”
[From a post on The New York Times's news blog, The Lede by the blog's editor, Robert Mackey.]
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Senator Lautenberg asks Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate
BP's role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison is being questioned in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Sen Frank Lautenberg, who is requesting an investigation into the oil company's success in securing a drilling contract in Libya.
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, won early release from prison last year after a doctor testified that he was near death and it would be compassionate to let him die a free man. But there are suggestions that Megrahi, who was given just weeks to live but is still alive and kicking, may have been the linchpin in BP's efforts to secure drilling rights in the Gulf of Sidra.
"The prospect that oil contracts between BP and the government of Libya may have affected the release, as well as new questions about the veracity of medical reports detailing Mr Megrahi’s health at the time, are disturbing developments that demand the attention of Congress, Lautenberg, D-NJ, wrote to Sens John Kerry, D-Mass, and Richard Lugar, R-Ind, the co-chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee. (...)
The UK-based BP, which is responsible for the oil spill that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for 85 [days], admitted that in 2007 it raised concern that a "prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt" the oil deal, according to Lautenberg.
Megrahi originally had not been part of the prisoner transfer, but former British Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw later cited "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in including Megrahi.
BP could earn as much as $20 billion from the deal with Libya, set to begin next month.
"It is shocking to even contemplate that BP is profiting from the release of a terrorist with the blood of 189 Americans on his hands," Lautenberg wrote. "The families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 deserve to know whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests in this case."
[From a report published today on the website of FOX News. The Senator's letter can be read here.
An article on the website of the New York Daily News contains the following:]
BP admits it had an interest in the prsioner swap, and was concerned it would derail its drilling deal, but the company insists it did push the Megrahi case.
BP spokesman Mark Salt e-mailed the following:
*It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
*Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP’s exploration agreement.
*However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al-Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK Government.
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, won early release from prison last year after a doctor testified that he was near death and it would be compassionate to let him die a free man. But there are suggestions that Megrahi, who was given just weeks to live but is still alive and kicking, may have been the linchpin in BP's efforts to secure drilling rights in the Gulf of Sidra.
"The prospect that oil contracts between BP and the government of Libya may have affected the release, as well as new questions about the veracity of medical reports detailing Mr Megrahi’s health at the time, are disturbing developments that demand the attention of Congress, Lautenberg, D-NJ, wrote to Sens John Kerry, D-Mass, and Richard Lugar, R-Ind, the co-chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee. (...)
The UK-based BP, which is responsible for the oil spill that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for 85 [days], admitted that in 2007 it raised concern that a "prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt" the oil deal, according to Lautenberg.
Megrahi originally had not been part of the prisoner transfer, but former British Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw later cited "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in including Megrahi.
BP could earn as much as $20 billion from the deal with Libya, set to begin next month.
"It is shocking to even contemplate that BP is profiting from the release of a terrorist with the blood of 189 Americans on his hands," Lautenberg wrote. "The families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 deserve to know whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests in this case."
[From a report published today on the website of FOX News. The Senator's letter can be read here.
An article on the website of the New York Daily News contains the following:]
BP admits it had an interest in the prsioner swap, and was concerned it would derail its drilling deal, but the company insists it did push the Megrahi case.
BP spokesman Mark Salt e-mailed the following:
*It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
*Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP’s exploration agreement.
*However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al-Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK Government.
Private Eye's take on Megrahi's continuing survival
[Under the headline 'The Mail asks: Why is This Man Still Alive?' satirical magazine Private Eye prints the following spoof story which nevertheless accurately reflects the stance taken towards Abdelbaset Megrahi's continued survival by the UK right-wing news media.]
Lockerbie bomber Abdul Megrahi was sent home to Libya on condition that he would die in 3 months. Yet this wily Libyan chancer has singularly failed to carry out his part of the bargain. He remains unrepentantly alive, to the distress of all the Lockerbie victims and the embarrassment of top cancer specialist, Sir Carol Vorderman, who promised that Megrahi would drop dead shortly after the plane landed in Tripoli.
The Mail Says: Die now you bastard and make our day!! And if you can't do the decent thing then ask your mad mate Colonel Gaddafi to plant a bomb in your bed and give you a taste of your own medicine. Bang!!
Lockerbie bomber Abdul Megrahi was sent home to Libya on condition that he would die in 3 months. Yet this wily Libyan chancer has singularly failed to carry out his part of the bargain. He remains unrepentantly alive, to the distress of all the Lockerbie victims and the embarrassment of top cancer specialist, Sir Carol Vorderman, who promised that Megrahi would drop dead shortly after the plane landed in Tripoli.
The Mail Says: Die now you bastard and make our day!! And if you can't do the decent thing then ask your mad mate Colonel Gaddafi to plant a bomb in your bed and give you a taste of your own medicine. Bang!!
Sens to State Dept: Push UK on Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over an Associated Press news report just published on the CBS3 website. It reads in part:]
Their own request denied, four US senators are pressuring the State Department to push Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing. (...)
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation in a July 7 letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
"The decision by the Scottish government to reject our request to reinvestigate the decision to release this terrorist raises more suspicions as to whether there was a rotten deal between the United Kingdom and the Libya government," Schumer said Monday. "So we're calling on the State Department to put a full-court press on the United Kingdom to return this terrorist to prison."
In his response to the senators, British Ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald said due process was followed.
"The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament conducted an inquiry into Mr Megrahi's release earlier this year and concluded that the Scottish Executive's consideration of the case took place in accordance with normal good practice," Sheinwald said.
State Department spokesman PJ Crowley could not say if Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had received the letter from the senators seeking the investigation but said the US continues to watch the situation with Megrahi closely.
"We haven't changed our view. We think that the decision to release Mr. Megrahi last summer was a mistake," he told reporters in Washington.
"There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We've been on the Megrahi watch since that time," Crowley said. "Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103."
Their own request denied, four US senators are pressuring the State Department to push Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing. (...)
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation in a July 7 letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
"The decision by the Scottish government to reject our request to reinvestigate the decision to release this terrorist raises more suspicions as to whether there was a rotten deal between the United Kingdom and the Libya government," Schumer said Monday. "So we're calling on the State Department to put a full-court press on the United Kingdom to return this terrorist to prison."
In his response to the senators, British Ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald said due process was followed.
"The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament conducted an inquiry into Mr Megrahi's release earlier this year and concluded that the Scottish Executive's consideration of the case took place in accordance with normal good practice," Sheinwald said.
State Department spokesman PJ Crowley could not say if Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had received the letter from the senators seeking the investigation but said the US continues to watch the situation with Megrahi closely.
"We haven't changed our view. We think that the decision to release Mr. Megrahi last summer was a mistake," he told reporters in Washington.
"There was an expectation from last August that Mr. Megrahi had only a few months to live. We've been on the Megrahi watch since that time," Crowley said. "Every day that he lives as a free man, we think is an affront to the families of and victims of Pan Am 103."
BP and Megrahi's repatriation
[What follows is the text of an interview by Paul Gigot with The Wall Street Journal's columnist Bret Stephens broadcast on Sunday 12 July on FOX News Channel. I am grateful to Frank Duggan for drawing it to my attention.]
Gigot: All right. Still ahead, it's under fire for the Deepwater drilling disaster, but there may be an even better reason to dislike BP. Did the oil giant profit from the Lockerbie bomber's release? The answer when we come back.
***
Gigot: Well, BP has come under blistering criticism in recent months as oil from its Deepwater Horizon well continues to spill into the Gulf of Mexico. But Wall Street Journal foreign-affairs columnist Bret Stephens says there may be even better reason to dislike the oil giant, as evidence grows that BP profited from last summer's release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. Bret joins us now.
So Bret, what's the connection between BP and the release of Megrahi?
Stephens: Well, just a few days ago, the Libyan government announced BP would begin deepwater drilling in its--
Gigot: Off of Libya.
Stephens: Off of the Libyan coast.
Gigot: Notwithstanding the Gulf of Mexico?
Stephens: Definitely notwithstanding the Gulf of Mexico. And in fact, that Libya might take a strategic stake in BP. Now, this follows news also in recent days that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi--the only man convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, who was released last year on the compassionate grounds that he only had a few months to live, and is still alive--might, in fact, live another 10 or 20 years. That was a statement by a doctor who offered the three-month prognosis but now says that he more or less gave that prognosis because he thought it could be, quote, "sort of justified."
Gigot: Well, let's take this in turn. This offshore drilling in Libya is very big, something like a $900 million project. So it's a very big contract. BP itself said it was something like the equivalent of 2,000 blocks, exploration blocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Stephens: Oh, it's absolutely enormous, because these are oil blocks right off the coast, which Libya itself doesn't have the--the Libyan oil company doesn't have the technology to explore. But they need a big Western oil company that can do the kind of deepwater drilling. And the question is, how did BP get itself to get these contracts?
Gigot: Well, that is the question, because the British deny any quid pro quo between the release of Megrahi and the contracts. BP denies it, I'm sure. So what's the evidence?
Stephens: Well, look, in 2004, when Gadhafi came in from the cold, then--
Gigot: Gave up his nuclear program.
Stephens: Gave up his nuclear program.
Gigot: Said he wanted to normalize relations.
Stephens: Tony Blair paid a number of--
Gigot: Former British prime minister.
Stephens: Former British prime minister, paid a number of visits. And on his second visit, in 2007, BP and the Libyan government inked an oil-exploration deal. But there was a hiccup. The Libyans were insisting on what they call a prisoner transfer agreement between the two countries, which sounds like, you know, one of these vanilla agreements that two countries reach. But the man that was plainly in question in any kind of prisoner transfer agreement was Megrahi, the guy who was then in a Scottish jail.
So they made this agreement, and then the UK took its time with this prisoner transfer agreement. So the Libyan government starting saying, Well, we're not so sure we're going to go ahead with the BP deal. At this point, we know--BP has admitted that it raised the issue of the prisoner transfer agreement with the then Labour government in Britain. It had a special adviser who was a former MI6 intelligence official, who was well connected with Labour Party officials, and who also raised the subject of the prisoner transfer agreement. Lo and behold, at the end of 2007, the UK finally gets around to signing--to signing this agreement, and it's at that point that the BP deal starts going forward.
Gigot: We also have a statement from Gadhafi's son, who has wanted to open up to the West, and is well-known in British circles that the oil contract was at issue.
Stephens: Yeah, no, it's clear both from what--not only from what the Libyans have said, Saif Gadhafi, but also from correspondence that was obtained by the London Sunday Times, in which then-Justice Minister Jack Straw writes to his Scottish counterparts, talking about the, quote, "overwhelming interests of the UK in getting this agreement passed." And it's funny. The Libyans kept dragging their heels all the way up until Megrahi was released.
Gigot: Here's a question, though: Why shouldn't Britain do this? I mean, it's in their national interest, obviously, to have oil exploration--a company do this. Megrahi is ill. We don't know how ill, that's true. And this is 20-some years ago. Here's the question: I mean, if Gadhafi wants to come in from the cold--maybe, shouldn't we just move on?
Stephens: I would say there are 270 reasons not to do that, and those are the 270 people who were murdered on Pan Am 103. I mean, there's no question, the oil companies go into all kinds of dangerous places with regimes that we don't necessarily like, which have spotty human-rights records. But Lockerbie is a case apart. And it's also in the UK's national interest to have good relations with the United States. This was a signal case in the war on terrorism, so there was a line to be drawn, and the British crossed it, in my mind.
Gigot: All right, Bret, thank you.
We have to take one more break. When we come back, our "Hits and Misses" of the week.
***
Gigot: Just as a follow-up to that previous segment, we did ask BP for comment. They promised to get back to us but never did.
Gigot: All right. Still ahead, it's under fire for the Deepwater drilling disaster, but there may be an even better reason to dislike BP. Did the oil giant profit from the Lockerbie bomber's release? The answer when we come back.
***
Gigot: Well, BP has come under blistering criticism in recent months as oil from its Deepwater Horizon well continues to spill into the Gulf of Mexico. But Wall Street Journal foreign-affairs columnist Bret Stephens says there may be even better reason to dislike the oil giant, as evidence grows that BP profited from last summer's release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. Bret joins us now.
So Bret, what's the connection between BP and the release of Megrahi?
Stephens: Well, just a few days ago, the Libyan government announced BP would begin deepwater drilling in its--
Gigot: Off of Libya.
Stephens: Off of the Libyan coast.
Gigot: Notwithstanding the Gulf of Mexico?
Stephens: Definitely notwithstanding the Gulf of Mexico. And in fact, that Libya might take a strategic stake in BP. Now, this follows news also in recent days that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi--the only man convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, who was released last year on the compassionate grounds that he only had a few months to live, and is still alive--might, in fact, live another 10 or 20 years. That was a statement by a doctor who offered the three-month prognosis but now says that he more or less gave that prognosis because he thought it could be, quote, "sort of justified."
Gigot: Well, let's take this in turn. This offshore drilling in Libya is very big, something like a $900 million project. So it's a very big contract. BP itself said it was something like the equivalent of 2,000 blocks, exploration blocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Stephens: Oh, it's absolutely enormous, because these are oil blocks right off the coast, which Libya itself doesn't have the--the Libyan oil company doesn't have the technology to explore. But they need a big Western oil company that can do the kind of deepwater drilling. And the question is, how did BP get itself to get these contracts?
Gigot: Well, that is the question, because the British deny any quid pro quo between the release of Megrahi and the contracts. BP denies it, I'm sure. So what's the evidence?
Stephens: Well, look, in 2004, when Gadhafi came in from the cold, then--
Gigot: Gave up his nuclear program.
Stephens: Gave up his nuclear program.
Gigot: Said he wanted to normalize relations.
Stephens: Tony Blair paid a number of--
Gigot: Former British prime minister.
Stephens: Former British prime minister, paid a number of visits. And on his second visit, in 2007, BP and the Libyan government inked an oil-exploration deal. But there was a hiccup. The Libyans were insisting on what they call a prisoner transfer agreement between the two countries, which sounds like, you know, one of these vanilla agreements that two countries reach. But the man that was plainly in question in any kind of prisoner transfer agreement was Megrahi, the guy who was then in a Scottish jail.
So they made this agreement, and then the UK took its time with this prisoner transfer agreement. So the Libyan government starting saying, Well, we're not so sure we're going to go ahead with the BP deal. At this point, we know--BP has admitted that it raised the issue of the prisoner transfer agreement with the then Labour government in Britain. It had a special adviser who was a former MI6 intelligence official, who was well connected with Labour Party officials, and who also raised the subject of the prisoner transfer agreement. Lo and behold, at the end of 2007, the UK finally gets around to signing--to signing this agreement, and it's at that point that the BP deal starts going forward.
Gigot: We also have a statement from Gadhafi's son, who has wanted to open up to the West, and is well-known in British circles that the oil contract was at issue.
Stephens: Yeah, no, it's clear both from what--not only from what the Libyans have said, Saif Gadhafi, but also from correspondence that was obtained by the London Sunday Times, in which then-Justice Minister Jack Straw writes to his Scottish counterparts, talking about the, quote, "overwhelming interests of the UK in getting this agreement passed." And it's funny. The Libyans kept dragging their heels all the way up until Megrahi was released.
Gigot: Here's a question, though: Why shouldn't Britain do this? I mean, it's in their national interest, obviously, to have oil exploration--a company do this. Megrahi is ill. We don't know how ill, that's true. And this is 20-some years ago. Here's the question: I mean, if Gadhafi wants to come in from the cold--maybe, shouldn't we just move on?
Stephens: I would say there are 270 reasons not to do that, and those are the 270 people who were murdered on Pan Am 103. I mean, there's no question, the oil companies go into all kinds of dangerous places with regimes that we don't necessarily like, which have spotty human-rights records. But Lockerbie is a case apart. And it's also in the UK's national interest to have good relations with the United States. This was a signal case in the war on terrorism, so there was a line to be drawn, and the British crossed it, in my mind.
Gigot: All right, Bret, thank you.
We have to take one more break. When we come back, our "Hits and Misses" of the week.
***
Gigot: Just as a follow-up to that previous segment, we did ask BP for comment. They promised to get back to us but never did.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Megrahi's state of mind
Al-Miqrahi spends his days in his house in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, nearly as a complete recluse, apart from some visits by some of those close to him from his family.
An informed Libyan source who met with Al-Miqrahi recently said that he avoids talking to the various domestic and international media organs
The source who spoke with Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity added: "Due to the condition of health, Al-Miqrahi suffers from a psychological problem. It is not a serious issue, but he is slightly depressed, and has expressed his annoyance with some of what is written about him."
The same source reveals that Al-Miqrahi has expressed some negative comments on the way the Libyan authorities deal with him. However, he reiterates that he is receiving intensive medical and social care under the supervision of the al-Gaddafi [International Charity and] Development Foundation, which is chaired by Engineer Saif-al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the second son of Libyan Leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. (...)
An official source at Al-Gaddafi Development Foundation says that a team from the foundation supervises the provision of all the needs of Al-Miqrahi and his family. The source points out that Al-Miqrahi receives great attention from Al-Gaddafi's son.
The source adds: "He (Saif-al-Islam al-Gaddafi) is on constant contact and is well informed about the situation of Al-Miqrahi. This is purely a humanitarian issue. Saif-al-Islam's interest stems from humanitarian reasons, and does not reflect any political aspects."
The source explained to Asharq Al-Awsat in a telephone interview from Tripoli that: "The foundation does not hesitate to offer all types of support, including medical care. Al-Miqrahi also gets financial help for himself and for his family."
The Libyan authorities keep silent about the reality of Al-Miqrahi's health condition. Omar al-Sinusi, the official spokesman of Tripoli International Center, which is located at the eastern entrance of Tripoli, and in which Al-Miqrahi receives treatment, has refused to comment to Asharq Al-Awsat on the announcement by the cancer expert, Karol Sikora, that Al-Miqrahi might live for another 10 years. (...)
Al-Miqrahi has published on a private website on the Internet documents, which he says that they prove his innocence of blowing up the Lockerbie airliner. Bear in mind that Al-Miqrahi has never admitted that he was involved in the incident, and that Libya considered him to be a "political hostage." For years, Libya has exerted efforts to secure his release.
The families of the Lockerbie victims have demonstrated differences in their viewpoints of the Lockerbie case since the tragedy occurred some 20 years ago. While British families said that Al-Miqrahi was convicted wrongly, US families expressed their conviction that he was guilty, and criticized his early release.
Al-Miqrahi denies playing a role in the blowing up of the airliner, and says that he was an employee of an airlines company, and was not a Libyan intelligence officer, as it is claimed.
[The above are excerpts from a report published today on the website of the Cairo-based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat.]
An informed Libyan source who met with Al-Miqrahi recently said that he avoids talking to the various domestic and international media organs
The source who spoke with Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity added: "Due to the condition of health, Al-Miqrahi suffers from a psychological problem. It is not a serious issue, but he is slightly depressed, and has expressed his annoyance with some of what is written about him."
The same source reveals that Al-Miqrahi has expressed some negative comments on the way the Libyan authorities deal with him. However, he reiterates that he is receiving intensive medical and social care under the supervision of the al-Gaddafi [International Charity and] Development Foundation, which is chaired by Engineer Saif-al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the second son of Libyan Leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. (...)
An official source at Al-Gaddafi Development Foundation says that a team from the foundation supervises the provision of all the needs of Al-Miqrahi and his family. The source points out that Al-Miqrahi receives great attention from Al-Gaddafi's son.
The source adds: "He (Saif-al-Islam al-Gaddafi) is on constant contact and is well informed about the situation of Al-Miqrahi. This is purely a humanitarian issue. Saif-al-Islam's interest stems from humanitarian reasons, and does not reflect any political aspects."
The source explained to Asharq Al-Awsat in a telephone interview from Tripoli that: "The foundation does not hesitate to offer all types of support, including medical care. Al-Miqrahi also gets financial help for himself and for his family."
The Libyan authorities keep silent about the reality of Al-Miqrahi's health condition. Omar al-Sinusi, the official spokesman of Tripoli International Center, which is located at the eastern entrance of Tripoli, and in which Al-Miqrahi receives treatment, has refused to comment to Asharq Al-Awsat on the announcement by the cancer expert, Karol Sikora, that Al-Miqrahi might live for another 10 years. (...)
Al-Miqrahi has published on a private website on the Internet documents, which he says that they prove his innocence of blowing up the Lockerbie airliner. Bear in mind that Al-Miqrahi has never admitted that he was involved in the incident, and that Libya considered him to be a "political hostage." For years, Libya has exerted efforts to secure his release.
The families of the Lockerbie victims have demonstrated differences in their viewpoints of the Lockerbie case since the tragedy occurred some 20 years ago. While British families said that Al-Miqrahi was convicted wrongly, US families expressed their conviction that he was guilty, and criticized his early release.
Al-Miqrahi denies playing a role in the blowing up of the airliner, and says that he was an employee of an airlines company, and was not a Libyan intelligence officer, as it is claimed.
[The above are excerpts from a report published today on the website of the Cairo-based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat.]
Senators call on Britain to probe release of Lockerbie bomber, who has outlived prognosis
[This is the headline over an Associated Press report in the Los Angeles Times of 7 July 2010. It reads as follows:]
Four US senators are calling on Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison in September because a doctor said the cancer-stricken man had only three months to live. However, the doctor later said al-Megrahi could live for another decade.
Al-Megrahi had served eight years of a life sentence for the Dec 21, 1988, bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 as it flew from London to New York.
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation Wednesday in a letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
[The reply by the UK ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, to Senator Gillibrand can be read here. The reply to the senators from the Scottish Government Counsellor, North America, can be read here.
Many other organs of the media have since picked up the story, among them BBC News and STV News.]
Four US senators are calling on Britain to investigate the circumstances of last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison in September because a doctor said the cancer-stricken man had only three months to live. However, the doctor later said al-Megrahi could live for another decade.
Al-Megrahi had served eight years of a life sentence for the Dec 21, 1988, bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 as it flew from London to New York.
Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey requested the investigation Wednesday in a letter to the UK's ambassador to the US.
[The reply by the UK ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, to Senator Gillibrand can be read here. The reply to the senators from the Scottish Government Counsellor, North America, can be read here.
Many other organs of the media have since picked up the story, among them BBC News and STV News.]
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Great trek
This blog is three years old today. It started with two posts entitled “Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result” and “The SCCRC Decision”. Both are still worth reading, I think.
It is unlikely that there will be further posts to the blog until Sunday, 11 July at the earliest. I embark today on my return trip from Middelpos to Edinburgh, via Struisbaai, Stellenbosch and Cape Town.
It is unlikely that there will be further posts to the blog until Sunday, 11 July at the earliest. I embark today on my return trip from Middelpos to Edinburgh, via Struisbaai, Stellenbosch and Cape Town.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
A (Better) Reason to Hate BP
[This is the headline over an article by Bret Stephens in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal. It reads in part:]
What Barack Obama taketh away, Moammar Gadhafi giveth. That must be the fond hope these days at BP, as it seeks to recoup in Libya's Gulf of Sidra what it is losing in the Gulf of Mexico. (...)
Yesterday, the chairman of Libya's National Oil Co told Zawya Dow Jones that he would urge Libya's sovereign wealth fund to buy a strategic stake in the troubled oil giant. That follows news that Libya will allow BP to begin deepwater drilling next month off Libya's coast as part of a $900 million exploration deal initially agreed upon in 2007. (...)
This rare patch of sunshine for BP arrives almost simultaneously with reports of another sort. Over the weekend, London's Sunday Times reported that a doctor who last year diagnosed Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi with metastatic prostate cancer and gave him three months to live now thinks the former Libyan intelligence agent "could survive for 10 years or more." (...)
Megrahi's not-so-surprising longevity is the latest sordid twist in a tale in which BP is no bystander. It begins in 2004, with efforts by then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair to rehabilitate Col Gadhafi and open Libya to British commercial interests. BP inked its exploration deal with Libya following a second visit by Mr Blair in 2007. But the deal nearly ran aground after the UK took its time finalizing a prisoner transfer agreement between the two countries.
It was at this point that BP became concerned. As this newspaper reported last September, BP admits that in 2007 it "told the UK government . . . it was concerned that a delay in concluding a prisoner transfer agrement with the Libyan government might hurt" the deal it had just signed. BP also told the Journal that a special adviser to the company named Mark Allen, formerly of MI6 and well-connected in Labour Party circles, raised the transfer agreement issue with then-Justice Secretary Jack Straw, though the company also says the two did not discuss Megrahi.
On what basis (other than sheer mercantilism) would a BP adviser raise a prisoner transfer agreement with senior UK officials? I put that question to a BP spokesperson and was told I'd hear back "shortly." As of press time, I still hadn't.
As for the UK and Scottish governments, their denials that Megrahi's release had anything to do with BP and other oil interests could not be more emphatic. "The idea that the British government and the Libyan government would sit down and somehow barter over the freedom or the life of this Libyan prisoner and make it form some part of some business deal . . . it's not only wrong, it's completely implausible and actually quite offensive," said then-UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson at the time of Megrahi's release.
Yet as the Sunday Times reported last year, in 2007 Mr Straw wrote his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill, the man who ultimately decided on Megrahi's release, that the UK would not exclude the Libyan from the prisoner agreement. "The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage," Mr Straw wrote, "and in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed in this instance the [prisoner agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Weeks later, Libya formally ratified its deal with BP, though it was again subject to bureaucratic delays until Megrahi's release. BP denied last year that the delays were anything other than routine. But the Libyans have been less than coy about the linkage: "People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil," Gadhafi's son Seif said after Megrahi's release.
BP has now spent the past 11 weeks promising to make things right for everyone affected by the Gulf spill. But for the families of Pan Am Flight 103's 270 victims, things can never be made right. Nor, following Megrahi's release, will justice ever be served. The question that BP could usefully answer—and answer fully—is whether, in that denial of justice, their interests were served. It won't restore the company to honor, but it might do something to restore a measure of trust.
What Barack Obama taketh away, Moammar Gadhafi giveth. That must be the fond hope these days at BP, as it seeks to recoup in Libya's Gulf of Sidra what it is losing in the Gulf of Mexico. (...)
Yesterday, the chairman of Libya's National Oil Co told Zawya Dow Jones that he would urge Libya's sovereign wealth fund to buy a strategic stake in the troubled oil giant. That follows news that Libya will allow BP to begin deepwater drilling next month off Libya's coast as part of a $900 million exploration deal initially agreed upon in 2007. (...)
This rare patch of sunshine for BP arrives almost simultaneously with reports of another sort. Over the weekend, London's Sunday Times reported that a doctor who last year diagnosed Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi with metastatic prostate cancer and gave him three months to live now thinks the former Libyan intelligence agent "could survive for 10 years or more." (...)
Megrahi's not-so-surprising longevity is the latest sordid twist in a tale in which BP is no bystander. It begins in 2004, with efforts by then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair to rehabilitate Col Gadhafi and open Libya to British commercial interests. BP inked its exploration deal with Libya following a second visit by Mr Blair in 2007. But the deal nearly ran aground after the UK took its time finalizing a prisoner transfer agreement between the two countries.
It was at this point that BP became concerned. As this newspaper reported last September, BP admits that in 2007 it "told the UK government . . . it was concerned that a delay in concluding a prisoner transfer agrement with the Libyan government might hurt" the deal it had just signed. BP also told the Journal that a special adviser to the company named Mark Allen, formerly of MI6 and well-connected in Labour Party circles, raised the transfer agreement issue with then-Justice Secretary Jack Straw, though the company also says the two did not discuss Megrahi.
On what basis (other than sheer mercantilism) would a BP adviser raise a prisoner transfer agreement with senior UK officials? I put that question to a BP spokesperson and was told I'd hear back "shortly." As of press time, I still hadn't.
As for the UK and Scottish governments, their denials that Megrahi's release had anything to do with BP and other oil interests could not be more emphatic. "The idea that the British government and the Libyan government would sit down and somehow barter over the freedom or the life of this Libyan prisoner and make it form some part of some business deal . . . it's not only wrong, it's completely implausible and actually quite offensive," said then-UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson at the time of Megrahi's release.
Yet as the Sunday Times reported last year, in 2007 Mr Straw wrote his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill, the man who ultimately decided on Megrahi's release, that the UK would not exclude the Libyan from the prisoner agreement. "The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage," Mr Straw wrote, "and in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed in this instance the [prisoner agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Weeks later, Libya formally ratified its deal with BP, though it was again subject to bureaucratic delays until Megrahi's release. BP denied last year that the delays were anything other than routine. But the Libyans have been less than coy about the linkage: "People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil," Gadhafi's son Seif said after Megrahi's release.
BP has now spent the past 11 weeks promising to make things right for everyone affected by the Gulf spill. But for the families of Pan Am Flight 103's 270 victims, things can never be made right. Nor, following Megrahi's release, will justice ever be served. The question that BP could usefully answer—and answer fully—is whether, in that denial of justice, their interests were served. It won't restore the company to honor, but it might do something to restore a measure of trust.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Swire defends Megrahi doctors
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
A prominent campaigner last night said he was “not surprised” a cancer specialist who advised the Scottish Government on the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has suggested Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi could live for 10 years or more.
Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the 1988 atrocity that claimed the lives of 270 people, said the fact that al Megrahi had been sent home to his family in Libya would have reduced his stress levels and helped to prolong his life.
His comments came after leading oncologist Karol Sikora, who advised Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, admitted he was embarrassed that al Megrahi had outlived his three-month prognosis after he had assessed him. (...)
Dr Swire told The Herald: “Karol Sikora is one of the people who advised Kenny MacAskill in the first place that there was a 50% chance of this guy living three months.
“But I can’t really find any fault with him because all doctors can do is work around an average for people with an illness at a particular stage.
“What happened to al Megrahi was that he was returned to his family, which reduces stress, and stress also decides how well your immune system fights the cancer.” (...)
Scotland’s chief medical officer, Harry Burns, had earlier refused to be specific about al Megrahi’s health and sought advice from Dr Grahame Howard, a consultant oncologist at Edinburgh Cancer Centre. Howard said: “I don’t think any oncologist would use a number in that way because the science isn’t perfect.
“I assessed his prognosis to be months, maybe many months. It’s an odd disease and many months can spread to years.”
Dr Swire, however, said he did not have any grounds to suggest medical evidence had been massaged to ensure an early release of the man convicted as a terrorist.
He added: “The fact is that going home to his family would firstly be likely to greatly increase his lifespan and secondly he may have received world-class treatment in Tripoli that hadn’t been administered in Scotland.
“We don’t know exactly what was done to him there. So I’m not surprised the guy is doing a lot better than originally predicted and I think that Karol Sikora is very wise to have set a wide range of possibilities.
“All doctors can do is work by the averages of people in that predicament and I’ve no doubt that Karol Sikora did that.”
[The Scotsman's report on the issue reads in part:]
New demands have been made for the Scottish Government to release the full medical reports behind the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber last year.
SNP ministers have been urged to come clean on the medical evidence following two conflicting, unconfirmed reports on the health of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
One report suggested that medical treatment had been withdrawn, which means he has just weeks to live, while another suggested that he might survive for another ten to 20 years.
At the time of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi in August last year, a short summary of advice which was made available showed that only a prison doctor believed he had less than six months to live, while four specialists would not commit to the estimate. With Megrahi just a month from celebrating a year out of jail, more questions are being asked over why he was released.
Tory justice spokesman, MSP John Lamont, said: "There are growing suspicions that the SNP decided to release the Lockerbie bomber and then found facts to fit the decision.
"Their refusal to publish the medical reports only adds fuel to the flames of suspicion
"As well as making all the evidence public, the SNP government must publish full details of the regular reports it is supposed to receive from Libya concerning Mr Megrahi's health.
"More and more people are asking, 'Why was the Lockerbie bomber really set free?'."
[The report in The Sunday Times which set this particular hare running can be read here.
A report in today's edition of the Daily Mirror reads in part:]
Claims that cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might live for another decade have been denied by his family.
They said the Libyan is now being kept alive by alternative medicine "and is unlikely to reach the first anniversary of his freedom".
A relative said: "He is almost certainly on his death bed. He is extremely sick, and surgeons stopped operating long ago.
"The cancer has since spread to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes. There is very little chance of him reaching August." (...)
He is being cared for at the family home in Tripoli.
A prominent campaigner last night said he was “not surprised” a cancer specialist who advised the Scottish Government on the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has suggested Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi could live for 10 years or more.
Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the 1988 atrocity that claimed the lives of 270 people, said the fact that al Megrahi had been sent home to his family in Libya would have reduced his stress levels and helped to prolong his life.
His comments came after leading oncologist Karol Sikora, who advised Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, admitted he was embarrassed that al Megrahi had outlived his three-month prognosis after he had assessed him. (...)
Dr Swire told The Herald: “Karol Sikora is one of the people who advised Kenny MacAskill in the first place that there was a 50% chance of this guy living three months.
“But I can’t really find any fault with him because all doctors can do is work around an average for people with an illness at a particular stage.
“What happened to al Megrahi was that he was returned to his family, which reduces stress, and stress also decides how well your immune system fights the cancer.” (...)
Scotland’s chief medical officer, Harry Burns, had earlier refused to be specific about al Megrahi’s health and sought advice from Dr Grahame Howard, a consultant oncologist at Edinburgh Cancer Centre. Howard said: “I don’t think any oncologist would use a number in that way because the science isn’t perfect.
“I assessed his prognosis to be months, maybe many months. It’s an odd disease and many months can spread to years.”
Dr Swire, however, said he did not have any grounds to suggest medical evidence had been massaged to ensure an early release of the man convicted as a terrorist.
He added: “The fact is that going home to his family would firstly be likely to greatly increase his lifespan and secondly he may have received world-class treatment in Tripoli that hadn’t been administered in Scotland.
“We don’t know exactly what was done to him there. So I’m not surprised the guy is doing a lot better than originally predicted and I think that Karol Sikora is very wise to have set a wide range of possibilities.
“All doctors can do is work by the averages of people in that predicament and I’ve no doubt that Karol Sikora did that.”
[The Scotsman's report on the issue reads in part:]
New demands have been made for the Scottish Government to release the full medical reports behind the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber last year.
SNP ministers have been urged to come clean on the medical evidence following two conflicting, unconfirmed reports on the health of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
One report suggested that medical treatment had been withdrawn, which means he has just weeks to live, while another suggested that he might survive for another ten to 20 years.
At the time of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi in August last year, a short summary of advice which was made available showed that only a prison doctor believed he had less than six months to live, while four specialists would not commit to the estimate. With Megrahi just a month from celebrating a year out of jail, more questions are being asked over why he was released.
Tory justice spokesman, MSP John Lamont, said: "There are growing suspicions that the SNP decided to release the Lockerbie bomber and then found facts to fit the decision.
"Their refusal to publish the medical reports only adds fuel to the flames of suspicion
"As well as making all the evidence public, the SNP government must publish full details of the regular reports it is supposed to receive from Libya concerning Mr Megrahi's health.
"More and more people are asking, 'Why was the Lockerbie bomber really set free?'."
[The report in The Sunday Times which set this particular hare running can be read here.
A report in today's edition of the Daily Mirror reads in part:]
Claims that cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might live for another decade have been denied by his family.
They said the Libyan is now being kept alive by alternative medicine "and is unlikely to reach the first anniversary of his freedom".
A relative said: "He is almost certainly on his death bed. He is extremely sick, and surgeons stopped operating long ago.
"The cancer has since spread to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes. There is very little chance of him reaching August." (...)
He is being cared for at the family home in Tripoli.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Megrahi’s doctors stop treatment
[I am grateful to a reader for drawing my attention to the following report in today's edition of Scotland's largest-circulation Sunday newspaper The Sunday Post. It should be contrasted with the article from earlier today that can be read here. The Post's story reads in part:]
Convicted Lockerbie bomber Abelbaset al-Megrahi is believed to be near death.
The news comes almost 11 months after he was freed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
At the time the Scottish Government said he was expected to die within three months. (...)
Reports from Libya claim Megrahi’s prostate cancer has spread to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes.
He’s understood to be bed-bound at home in Tripoli attached to a morphine drip for pain relief.
The date of Megrahi’s death could be politically significant.
Should he survive until August Megrahi would have been free for a year, after Mr MacAskill assured the world he had fewer than three months to live when releasing him.
This could put serious pressure on the Justice Secretary’s position.
Megrahi’s regular visits to hospital for treatment have now stopped. It’s claimed he’s no longer responding to chemotherapy. Doctors now say he’s expected to die within weeks.
The Scottish Government receives monthly reports on his condition and one is expected this week. It’s likely to confirm that treatment to fight the cancer has ended and Megrahi is receiving only palliative care. (...)
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 27 years, but served just eight before being released on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill last August.
When first diagnosed with prostate cancer in autumn 2008 specialists said he was likely to survive 18 months to two years.
Following the Prisoner Transfer Agreement application made on Megrahi’s behalf in May 2009, he was examined by specialists who found his cancer had become “hormone resistant”.
A report from the Scottish Prison Service concluded, “The specialist view is that, in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of ‘months’, and no longer ‘many months’.
“Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say.”
Mr MacAskill’s decision split opinion, with the US government and many victims’ relatives opposed.
However, he received support from some UK relatives, including Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, as well as former South African President Nelson Mandela.
[The full report can, for the time being, be accessed here.]
Convicted Lockerbie bomber Abelbaset al-Megrahi is believed to be near death.
The news comes almost 11 months after he was freed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
At the time the Scottish Government said he was expected to die within three months. (...)
Reports from Libya claim Megrahi’s prostate cancer has spread to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes.
He’s understood to be bed-bound at home in Tripoli attached to a morphine drip for pain relief.
The date of Megrahi’s death could be politically significant.
Should he survive until August Megrahi would have been free for a year, after Mr MacAskill assured the world he had fewer than three months to live when releasing him.
This could put serious pressure on the Justice Secretary’s position.
Megrahi’s regular visits to hospital for treatment have now stopped. It’s claimed he’s no longer responding to chemotherapy. Doctors now say he’s expected to die within weeks.
The Scottish Government receives monthly reports on his condition and one is expected this week. It’s likely to confirm that treatment to fight the cancer has ended and Megrahi is receiving only palliative care. (...)
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 27 years, but served just eight before being released on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill last August.
When first diagnosed with prostate cancer in autumn 2008 specialists said he was likely to survive 18 months to two years.
Following the Prisoner Transfer Agreement application made on Megrahi’s behalf in May 2009, he was examined by specialists who found his cancer had become “hormone resistant”.
A report from the Scottish Prison Service concluded, “The specialist view is that, in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of ‘months’, and no longer ‘many months’.
“Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say.”
Mr MacAskill’s decision split opinion, with the US government and many victims’ relatives opposed.
However, he received support from some UK relatives, including Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, as well as former South African President Nelson Mandela.
[The full report can, for the time being, be accessed here.]
MacAskill guilty of criminal abdication of responsibility
Kenny MacAskill will go down in history as the justice secretary who legalised crime; or, at any rate, abolished punishment. Under his beneficent rule it is becoming virtually impossible for a Scottish criminal to enter prison. (...)
MacAskill's priority is to keep as many offenders as possible out of prison. The most notorious example, which has earned this liberal fruitcake worldwide opprobrium, is his release last August of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, on the grounds he had less than three months to live: he is still alive, at home in Libya. Having freed, after just seven years, a man convicted of the murder of 270 people it was hardly likely that MacAskill would willingly be party to the incarceration of lesser criminals.
[From an article in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday by columnist and right-wing ideologue Gerald Warner. The first of the readers' comments following the article reads in part:]
It is deplorable that Warner should echo the clamour of Holyrood's Vichy Tories and other opposition numpties on this issue. His high-level contacts may be political back numbers. Even so, Warner cannot fail to be aware that Megrahi did not commit the crime for which he was convicted.
MacAskill's priority is to keep as many offenders as possible out of prison. The most notorious example, which has earned this liberal fruitcake worldwide opprobrium, is his release last August of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, on the grounds he had less than three months to live: he is still alive, at home in Libya. Having freed, after just seven years, a man convicted of the murder of 270 people it was hardly likely that MacAskill would willingly be party to the incarceration of lesser criminals.
[From an article in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday by columnist and right-wing ideologue Gerald Warner. The first of the readers' comments following the article reads in part:]
It is deplorable that Warner should echo the clamour of Holyrood's Vichy Tories and other opposition numpties on this issue. His high-level contacts may be political back numbers. Even so, Warner cannot fail to be aware that Megrahi did not commit the crime for which he was convicted.
Megrahi 'could live 10 yrs' with cancer
The Lockerbie bomber could survive for 10 years or longer, according to an embarrassed cancer specialist who only last year said he would be dead within three months of his release, a newspaper reported on Sunday.
Professor Karol Sikora, who assessed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi for the Libyan authorities almost a year ago, told The Sunday Times it was "embarrassing" that he had outlived his three-month prognosis.
The Scottish government provoked outrage from the United States when it released Megrahi from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
But the newspaper claimed that Sikora, the dean of medicine at Buckingham University in southern England, was the only expert the Libyan authorities could find who would agree to put the three-month estimate on Megrahi's life.
It reported that the advice of two other experts was ignored after they said Megrahi could live for 19 months.
Sikora said: "There was always a chance he could live for 10 years, 20 years... But it's very unusual."
The professor told The Sunday Times that the Libyan authorities made it clear to him that if he concluded Megrahi would die in a matter of months, it would greatly improve Megrahi's chances of being released from jail in Scotland.
"It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point," Sikora said.
"On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify (that)."
He denied he came any under pressure, but admitted: "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long."
"There was a 50 percent chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50 percent chance that he would live longer."
[From an Agence France Presse news agency report published earlier today.
There is also a related report on the BBC News website, a longer report on the Telegraph website and an even longer report on the Daily Mail website.
All of the above reports are based upon an article in The Sunday Times. Because that newspaper's website is now subscription only, and I decline to make any contribution -- however small -- to the coffers of Rupert Murdoch's News International, I was unable to quote from or refer to the original source. However, Frank Duggan, President of the US relatives' group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc, has sent me the text of the article and I reproduce it below.]
Few people had heard of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, before he stepped in front of the world's television cameras to announce the fate of the Lockerbie bomber. Yet by the time he had ended his rambling statement, in which he granted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi his freedom and sought to burnish Scotland's humanitarian credentials, he found himself in the eye of a diplomatic storm.
More than 10 months after returning to Tripoli to a hero's welcome, Megrahi is still alive.
Saif Gadaffi, the son of the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, says Megrahi is "very sick" with advanced prostate cancer — but he has far outlived the three-month prognosis accorded to him by the Scottish government that secured his release on compassionate grounds.
Despite assurances from MacAskill that Megrahi, 58, was close to death in August last year, only one British doctor contacted as part of a Sunday Times investigation would admit to having endorsed the three-month prediction.
In fact, the "firm consensus" among medical experts of which MacAskill spoke does not appear to exist.
Approaches to eight key people involved in Megrahi's case now suggest that both the Scottish government and the Libyan authorities selectively chose their information.
The disclosure threatens to reignite the anger that met Megrahi's release. Speculation has been rife that he was allowed to go free — despite being convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 people — as part of an Anglo-Libyan trade deal.
Last year The Sunday Times revealed that Jack Straw, the former justice secretary at Westminster, had written to his Scottish counterpart to say it was "in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" to make Megrahi eligible for return to Libya.
The letter was written in December 2007 when negotiations with Libya had stalled over a BP oil exploration contract worth up to £15 billion. Announcing Megrahi's release, MacAskill said that "life expectancy of less than three months" could make a prisoner eligible to be freed on compassionate grounds.
The Libyan authorities seemed determined to find a doctor who would provide the three-month prognosis. Early efforts at the start of last year proved unsuccessful. Dr Stephen Harland, a consultant oncologist at University College London hospital, and David Dearnaley, professor of uro-oncology at the Royal Marsden hospital in London, both told the Libyans that Megrahi's lifespan was closer to 19 months. Libya's ambassador to London subsequently turned to Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK and dean of the medical school at Buckingham University.
Sikora, who was paid £200 an hour for his services, said: "It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point. On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify [that]."
Sikora now admits there was always a chance that Megrahi could live for much longer — possibly 10 or even 20 years. It is understood that he did not mention this in his report for the Libyans. "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long," Sikora said.
Last week he denied he had been put under pressure, but indicated he may have been looking for "really bad news". Sikora said he had seen other patients with the same symptoms as Megrahi who had lived for five years: "There was a 50% chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50% chance that he would live longer."
When Scotland's chief medical officer sought advice from Dr Grahame Howard, a consultant at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Howard refused to commit to a specific timeframe.
"I don't think any oncologist would use a number in that way because the science isn't perfect," said Howard.
"I assessed his likely prognosis to be maybe many months. It's an odd disease and many months can spread to years." A source said: "It wasn't clinical judgment to release him, it was made at a political level."
Sikora now wonders if he was even provided with the correct medical records. When he visited Megrahi at Greenock prison on July 28 last year, he was accompanied by another British expert, Professor Jonathan Waxman, an oncologist from Hammersmith hospital in London, and a hormone specialist from Tripoli.
Waxman refused to concur with Sikora's three-month prognosis or even to put a timeframe on Megrahi's chances of survival. He has told friends he is not "surprised at all" that Megrahi is still alive.
The trio's findings were sent to the Scottish government on August 14, six days before MacAskill announced his decision to release Megrahi. His aides say he based his conclusions on a report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). This, it was claimed, drew on the expertise of those involved in Megrahi's care. But It is understood that the two doctors closest to Megrahi — Dr Zak Latif, his urologist, and Dr Richard Jones, his oncologist — were not asked for their advice.
A source said: "You can read into that what you want." Both doctors refused to comment.
[All of the above should be compared with this report from The Sunday Post.]
Professor Karol Sikora, who assessed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi for the Libyan authorities almost a year ago, told The Sunday Times it was "embarrassing" that he had outlived his three-month prognosis.
The Scottish government provoked outrage from the United States when it released Megrahi from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
But the newspaper claimed that Sikora, the dean of medicine at Buckingham University in southern England, was the only expert the Libyan authorities could find who would agree to put the three-month estimate on Megrahi's life.
It reported that the advice of two other experts was ignored after they said Megrahi could live for 19 months.
Sikora said: "There was always a chance he could live for 10 years, 20 years... But it's very unusual."
The professor told The Sunday Times that the Libyan authorities made it clear to him that if he concluded Megrahi would die in a matter of months, it would greatly improve Megrahi's chances of being released from jail in Scotland.
"It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point," Sikora said.
"On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify (that)."
He denied he came any under pressure, but admitted: "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long."
"There was a 50 percent chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50 percent chance that he would live longer."
[From an Agence France Presse news agency report published earlier today.
There is also a related report on the BBC News website, a longer report on the Telegraph website and an even longer report on the Daily Mail website.
All of the above reports are based upon an article in The Sunday Times. Because that newspaper's website is now subscription only, and I decline to make any contribution -- however small -- to the coffers of Rupert Murdoch's News International, I was unable to quote from or refer to the original source. However, Frank Duggan, President of the US relatives' group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc, has sent me the text of the article and I reproduce it below.]
Few people had heard of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, before he stepped in front of the world's television cameras to announce the fate of the Lockerbie bomber. Yet by the time he had ended his rambling statement, in which he granted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi his freedom and sought to burnish Scotland's humanitarian credentials, he found himself in the eye of a diplomatic storm.
More than 10 months after returning to Tripoli to a hero's welcome, Megrahi is still alive.
Saif Gadaffi, the son of the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, says Megrahi is "very sick" with advanced prostate cancer — but he has far outlived the three-month prognosis accorded to him by the Scottish government that secured his release on compassionate grounds.
Despite assurances from MacAskill that Megrahi, 58, was close to death in August last year, only one British doctor contacted as part of a Sunday Times investigation would admit to having endorsed the three-month prediction.
In fact, the "firm consensus" among medical experts of which MacAskill spoke does not appear to exist.
Approaches to eight key people involved in Megrahi's case now suggest that both the Scottish government and the Libyan authorities selectively chose their information.
The disclosure threatens to reignite the anger that met Megrahi's release. Speculation has been rife that he was allowed to go free — despite being convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 people — as part of an Anglo-Libyan trade deal.
Last year The Sunday Times revealed that Jack Straw, the former justice secretary at Westminster, had written to his Scottish counterpart to say it was "in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" to make Megrahi eligible for return to Libya.
The letter was written in December 2007 when negotiations with Libya had stalled over a BP oil exploration contract worth up to £15 billion. Announcing Megrahi's release, MacAskill said that "life expectancy of less than three months" could make a prisoner eligible to be freed on compassionate grounds.
The Libyan authorities seemed determined to find a doctor who would provide the three-month prognosis. Early efforts at the start of last year proved unsuccessful. Dr Stephen Harland, a consultant oncologist at University College London hospital, and David Dearnaley, professor of uro-oncology at the Royal Marsden hospital in London, both told the Libyans that Megrahi's lifespan was closer to 19 months. Libya's ambassador to London subsequently turned to Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK and dean of the medical school at Buckingham University.
Sikora, who was paid £200 an hour for his services, said: "It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point. On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify [that]."
Sikora now admits there was always a chance that Megrahi could live for much longer — possibly 10 or even 20 years. It is understood that he did not mention this in his report for the Libyans. "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long," Sikora said.
Last week he denied he had been put under pressure, but indicated he may have been looking for "really bad news". Sikora said he had seen other patients with the same symptoms as Megrahi who had lived for five years: "There was a 50% chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50% chance that he would live longer."
When Scotland's chief medical officer sought advice from Dr Grahame Howard, a consultant at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Howard refused to commit to a specific timeframe.
"I don't think any oncologist would use a number in that way because the science isn't perfect," said Howard.
"I assessed his likely prognosis to be maybe many months. It's an odd disease and many months can spread to years." A source said: "It wasn't clinical judgment to release him, it was made at a political level."
Sikora now wonders if he was even provided with the correct medical records. When he visited Megrahi at Greenock prison on July 28 last year, he was accompanied by another British expert, Professor Jonathan Waxman, an oncologist from Hammersmith hospital in London, and a hormone specialist from Tripoli.
Waxman refused to concur with Sikora's three-month prognosis or even to put a timeframe on Megrahi's chances of survival. He has told friends he is not "surprised at all" that Megrahi is still alive.
The trio's findings were sent to the Scottish government on August 14, six days before MacAskill announced his decision to release Megrahi. His aides say he based his conclusions on a report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). This, it was claimed, drew on the expertise of those involved in Megrahi's care. But It is understood that the two doctors closest to Megrahi — Dr Zak Latif, his urologist, and Dr Richard Jones, his oncologist — were not asked for their advice.
A source said: "You can read into that what you want." Both doctors refused to comment.
[All of the above should be compared with this report from The Sunday Post.]
Megrahi could spill his secrets in memoirs
Secret documents that could clear the Lockerbie bomber's name will be published in his controversial autobiography.
Sources close to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi have confirmed that his crucial grounds for appeal will be contained in his memoirs.
An investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which lasted three years, concluded that there were six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Megrahi has refused to make those public - until now.
Last night, sources close to the team working on the book confirmed it was well under way.
And respected publishing house Mainstream refused to confirm or deny their involvement. (...)
It is understood Megrahi is being helped to write the book by journalist John Ashton.
Ashton is co-author of Cover-Up Of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal Of Lockerbie, published by Mainstream in 2001.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103, believes the documents could help clear Megrahi's name.
Dr Swire has long believed Megrahi was not involved in the atrocity.
He added: "So long as Mr Megrahi is alive, he has control over the material that was assembled by the defence on his behalf.
"He has his own projects which involve that material, which I am not at liberty to talk about.
"But as long as he is alive and as long as those projects are under way, then certainly the material will not be released.
"What happens after his death, I don't know."
[From a report by Mark Aitken in today's edition of the Sunday Mail.]
Sources close to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi have confirmed that his crucial grounds for appeal will be contained in his memoirs.
An investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which lasted three years, concluded that there were six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Megrahi has refused to make those public - until now.
Last night, sources close to the team working on the book confirmed it was well under way.
And respected publishing house Mainstream refused to confirm or deny their involvement. (...)
It is understood Megrahi is being helped to write the book by journalist John Ashton.
Ashton is co-author of Cover-Up Of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal Of Lockerbie, published by Mainstream in 2001.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103, believes the documents could help clear Megrahi's name.
Dr Swire has long believed Megrahi was not involved in the atrocity.
He added: "So long as Mr Megrahi is alive, he has control over the material that was assembled by the defence on his behalf.
"He has his own projects which involve that material, which I am not at liberty to talk about.
"But as long as he is alive and as long as those projects are under way, then certainly the material will not be released.
"What happens after his death, I don't know."
[From a report by Mark Aitken in today's edition of the Sunday Mail.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)