[What follows is the text of a press release just issued by Christine Grahame MSP. The Press Association news agency has circulated a short report.]
US challenged to back international inquiry into PA103/Lockerbie bombing
The US Government has been challenged to support a “thorough and comprehensive” international inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Scottish National Party MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) Christine Grahame who last year met Abdelbaset al Megrahi in Greenock prison on several occasions and supports the UK families fight to secure the full truth behind the atrocity, has written to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling on her to back the establishment of an international inquiry. Ms Grahame said:
“There remains legitimate concern about how this case was investigated and prosecuted and also, from the US side, ongoing anger at the decision to release Mr Megrahi.
“The details of the lengthy investigation carried out by the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice with regard to the conviction of Mr Megrahi, but that new evidence is unlikely ever to be seen in public unless we secure a major inquiry.
“The Scottish Government has already said it would co-operate fully with an inquiry if one were set up.
“I am now challenging the US Government to do likewise and help establish an international inquiry into the events that led to the bombing of PA103 over Lockerbie and examine all of the facts related to this case.
“Having examined much of the additional material and reviewed previous evidence I am left in no doubt about Mr Megrahi’s innocence, but I think it is equally clear that there are large state interests, both in the US and UK eager to see that the truth behind Lockerbie never emerges.
“If the US Government has nothing to hide then I would expect them to support the establishment of an international inquiry into the bombing. I rather suspect however they will, for their own national interest, pursue the same tired line about the manner in which Mr Megrahi was sent back to Libya. That aspect is only a very small part of what requires to be examined and in many ways has acted as a smokescreen to the much more substantive questions that remained unanswered.
“I do not believe the full facts are yet known. I think once they are made public then many in the US will be looking to their own Government for an explanation about why they have been deceived.
“I understand and sympathise with the many, mostly US families, who believe Mr Megrahi is guilty of this terrible crime. That is why it is imperative that an international inquiry examines all of the circumstances of this case, not simply Mr Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds back to Libya, but the manner in which the initial investigation was conducted, the trial and the alleged additional crime scene of the FBI laboratory in Washington where former FBI officials believe key evidence related to the case may have been tampered with.
“The families of the victims deserve the actual truth and not the spoon fed version of it they have so far received from the US and British Governments.”
[A related article can be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Thursday, 15 July 2010
BP, the Lockerbie bomber and a cynical stunt
[This is the headline over a long article by Tim Edwards on The First Post website. The final section reads:]
... the Senators have succeeded in linking the two most poisonous blights on US-UK relations of the past year, and guaranteed maximum publicity for their campaign. Clinton says she will "look into" the request.
BP and its CEO Tony Hayward, for their part, could be forgiven for being a little bemused that Senators have grabbed yet another stick to beat them now that they are so close to capping the oil spill.
BP openly admits it told the British government in 2007 that delays in releasing al-Megrahi were an obstacle to an oil deal. Any investigation into the affair will only reveal what is already known: that Hayward's predecessor John Browne wasn't the only oil exec to negotiate with Libya (Rex Tillerson, the current CEO of ExxonMobil, met Gaddafi in 2005), and that Shell and ExxonMobil beat BP to Libyan oil licenses anyway.
Al-Megrahi would have been released with or without BP's lobbying. Although trade deals were an important factor, far more pressing for the UK government was the fact that al-Megrahi was preparing an appeal against his conviction that may well have resulted in an embarrassing acquittal.
In truth the focus on BP's relationship with Libya is a cynical publicity stunt by four US Senators who, quite understandably, are attempting to win what they see as justice for their constituents.
[Today's edition of The Scotsman contains a letter from Bob Taylor that reads:]
What exactly do the four United States senators hope to achieve by pressing for an investigation into the Lockerbie bomber's release (...)?
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's statement in support of his decision to let Abdelbaset al-Megrahi go on compassionate grounds has already been analysed in depth.
The rigour of the medical advice, the controversial visit by the minister to Greenock prison and the flying of the Saltire at Tripoli airport have all been rehashed ad infinitum.
What seems to have been ignored was a significant part of Mr McAskill's statement last summer. He made the point that he had come under no pressure from any quarter to make a decision either way.
But he also stressed another matter: that the Scottish Government had no powers to examine the wider aspects of the case but would co-operate if a major inquiry was established at either UK or international level.
It is for this that the four senators should be campaigning. There is an understandable angst across the Atlantic about Megrahi's longevity.
This is not the main issue. It is that there are now a number of diplomatic, economic and legal barriers to the quest for truth on the whole affair. The bodies that can overcome these barriers are the British, Libyan and US governments.
How long Megrahi lives seems a small point compared with what might emerge if they were all truthful about what really went on.
[The readers' comments that follow the letter are also worth reading.]
... the Senators have succeeded in linking the two most poisonous blights on US-UK relations of the past year, and guaranteed maximum publicity for their campaign. Clinton says she will "look into" the request.
BP and its CEO Tony Hayward, for their part, could be forgiven for being a little bemused that Senators have grabbed yet another stick to beat them now that they are so close to capping the oil spill.
BP openly admits it told the British government in 2007 that delays in releasing al-Megrahi were an obstacle to an oil deal. Any investigation into the affair will only reveal what is already known: that Hayward's predecessor John Browne wasn't the only oil exec to negotiate with Libya (Rex Tillerson, the current CEO of ExxonMobil, met Gaddafi in 2005), and that Shell and ExxonMobil beat BP to Libyan oil licenses anyway.
Al-Megrahi would have been released with or without BP's lobbying. Although trade deals were an important factor, far more pressing for the UK government was the fact that al-Megrahi was preparing an appeal against his conviction that may well have resulted in an embarrassing acquittal.
In truth the focus on BP's relationship with Libya is a cynical publicity stunt by four US Senators who, quite understandably, are attempting to win what they see as justice for their constituents.
[Today's edition of The Scotsman contains a letter from Bob Taylor that reads:]
What exactly do the four United States senators hope to achieve by pressing for an investigation into the Lockerbie bomber's release (...)?
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's statement in support of his decision to let Abdelbaset al-Megrahi go on compassionate grounds has already been analysed in depth.
The rigour of the medical advice, the controversial visit by the minister to Greenock prison and the flying of the Saltire at Tripoli airport have all been rehashed ad infinitum.
What seems to have been ignored was a significant part of Mr McAskill's statement last summer. He made the point that he had come under no pressure from any quarter to make a decision either way.
But he also stressed another matter: that the Scottish Government had no powers to examine the wider aspects of the case but would co-operate if a major inquiry was established at either UK or international level.
It is for this that the four senators should be campaigning. There is an understandable angst across the Atlantic about Megrahi's longevity.
This is not the main issue. It is that there are now a number of diplomatic, economic and legal barriers to the quest for truth on the whole affair. The bodies that can overcome these barriers are the British, Libyan and US governments.
How long Megrahi lives seems a small point compared with what might emerge if they were all truthful about what really went on.
[The readers' comments that follow the letter are also worth reading.]
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Clinton to look into senators' request on BP, Libya
[This is the headline over a report on the website of the news agency Reuters. It reads in part:]
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday she would look into a request by US lawmakers that the State Department investigate whether oil company BP plc had a hand in the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.
According to media reports, London-based oil company BP lobbied the British government to support the prison transfer, which may have encouraged Libya to finalize an offshore drilling deal with BP. (...)
"I have received the letter and we will obviously look into it," Clinton said in response to a reporter's question, referring to a letter from Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer.
[This story also features in Thursday's edition of The Guardian, where Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is quoted as saying: "It is almost too disgusting to fathom that BP had a possible role in securing the release of the Lockerbie terrorist in return for an oil drilling deal."
The Herald also has a report in which Sen Schumer is quoted: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British Government and Libya.”
The Aljazeera news website also features a report.]
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday she would look into a request by US lawmakers that the State Department investigate whether oil company BP plc had a hand in the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.
According to media reports, London-based oil company BP lobbied the British government to support the prison transfer, which may have encouraged Libya to finalize an offshore drilling deal with BP. (...)
"I have received the letter and we will obviously look into it," Clinton said in response to a reporter's question, referring to a letter from Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer.
[This story also features in Thursday's edition of The Guardian, where Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is quoted as saying: "It is almost too disgusting to fathom that BP had a possible role in securing the release of the Lockerbie terrorist in return for an oil drilling deal."
The Herald also has a report in which Sen Schumer is quoted: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British Government and Libya.”
The Aljazeera news website also features a report.]
BP must halt Libya wells, say senators seeking Lockerbie probe
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Bloomberg Businessweek website. It reads in part:]
BP plc should stop a planned drilling campaign in Libya while links between the oil producer and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi are investigated, a group of US Senators said.
The London-based company has a rig in place to start a well in the Gulf of Sirte after completing a seismic survey last year. BP also plans to drill onshore in the Ghadames basin by the end of the year, Robert Wine, a spokesman for BP, said today.
BP, under political pressure to stop and clean up the worst oil spill in US history, signed an exploration agreement with Libya’s National Oil Corp in May 2007 during a visit by then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. US senators, who yesterday asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to examine whether BP helped secure al-Megrahi’s freedom from a Scottish jail to facilitate the deal, held a press conference today demanding BP stop drilling in Libya.
“Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people,” Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York wrote in the letter to Clinton yesterday. “The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?”
Menendez, Schumer and Lautenberg held a press conference in Washington this morning “to call for BP to suspend its oil drilling plans in Libya,” Mike Morey, a spokesman for Schumer, wrote in an e-mail.
Libya has proved oil reserves of 44.3 billion barrels, the most in Africa, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (...)
“Libya due to start in a matter of weeks,” Wine said today in an e-mail. “Rig is being made ready, final preparations and checks are underway.” (...)
“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,” the company said today.
Libya formally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie attack in 2003 and agreed to pay up to $2.7 billion in damages to families of the victims. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi finished settling claims of US Lockerbie victims with a $1.5 billion installment last year.
The country was removed from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism in 2006 after Qaddafi agreed to give up chemical weapons and compensate Lockerbie victims.
BP plc should stop a planned drilling campaign in Libya while links between the oil producer and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi are investigated, a group of US Senators said.
The London-based company has a rig in place to start a well in the Gulf of Sirte after completing a seismic survey last year. BP also plans to drill onshore in the Ghadames basin by the end of the year, Robert Wine, a spokesman for BP, said today.
BP, under political pressure to stop and clean up the worst oil spill in US history, signed an exploration agreement with Libya’s National Oil Corp in May 2007 during a visit by then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. US senators, who yesterday asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to examine whether BP helped secure al-Megrahi’s freedom from a Scottish jail to facilitate the deal, held a press conference today demanding BP stop drilling in Libya.
“Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people,” Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York wrote in the letter to Clinton yesterday. “The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?”
Menendez, Schumer and Lautenberg held a press conference in Washington this morning “to call for BP to suspend its oil drilling plans in Libya,” Mike Morey, a spokesman for Schumer, wrote in an e-mail.
Libya has proved oil reserves of 44.3 billion barrels, the most in Africa, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (...)
“Libya due to start in a matter of weeks,” Wine said today in an e-mail. “Rig is being made ready, final preparations and checks are underway.” (...)
“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,” the company said today.
Libya formally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie attack in 2003 and agreed to pay up to $2.7 billion in damages to families of the victims. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi finished settling claims of US Lockerbie victims with a $1.5 billion installment last year.
The country was removed from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism in 2006 after Qaddafi agreed to give up chemical weapons and compensate Lockerbie victims.
US State Department on senatorial call for investigation
[The following is an excerpt from the transcript of yesterday's State Department press briefing conducted by Assistant Secretary Philip J Crowley.]
QUESTION: We went over this a little bit yesterday about Mr Megrahi, the Libyan bomber of Pan Am 103, about the fact that he kind of seemed to have lived a lot longer than doctors predicted. But now the senators that we talked about yesterday, they’re also raising the issue that – asking for a Senate investigation about a possible deal with BP being part of the reason why the British let him go. Can you – do you support the senators’ calls for an investigation and are you at all concerned that oil and trade deals were part of the deal? I know we talked about it a little yesterday.
MR CROWLEY: Well, again, as to the reason why Scottish authorities made the decision that they made, we will leave it to them to explain why they made that decision. But the basis was for making that decision, how they evaluated the medical evidence that was presented to them. As we indicated then, as I indicated yesterday, I can repeat today, we felt that his release was a mistake.
QUESTION: But do you support a British – a Senate investigation into charges that the Brits kind of traded him for a deal – for oil deals?
MR CROWLEY: I can tell you that we have received – there was mention made yesterday of a letter by a number of senators encouraging us to raise this issue with the new British Government. We have received that letter. I’m not aware that we’ve had a conversation yet with the British Government about this issue. It’s unclear that there’s anything that we can do at this point. A year ago, he was – 11 months ago he was released. We thought it was a mistake. We haven’t changed our view. He sits in Libya today and it is for Scottish authorities to explain the basis upon which they made the decision that they made. As I recall, a year ago, they indicated this was made on humanitarian grounds. We disagreed with that judgment. But I can’t offer an opinion as to whether we, the United States, ought to investigate a decision made by a previous British Government in consultation with Scottish authorities.
QUESTION: So do you want the Scottish authorities or the British Government to reinvestigate the medical evidence that was used to inform the decision to release Mr Megrahi?
MR CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we share the concerns raised in the letter to us that seems to draw – to question the medical basis upon which the Scottish authorities made the decision that they made. Again, this may well be an issue for the British Government to investigate. I’m not sure-- we regret what’s been done. I’m not sure at this point that there’s anything that we can do on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.
QUESTION: Just so we’re clear about the letters, there’s been a number of letters that have been written by these four senators. The letter that I have today – and I don’t know if it’s the same one that Elise is referring to – is dated July 13th. It asks not for a Senate investigation but for a State Department investigation into reports that BP might have sought to secure his release. The letter is addressed to Secretary Clinton. Do you have that letter, one, and do you have any intention of --
MR CROWLEY: Okay, I will --
QUESTION: -- investigating that --
MR CROWLEY: If there’s a letter that was dated today, it is possible that that is in transit to us as we speak. As to the letter that was mentioned yesterday, we, in fact, have that letter and we will respond to it. Again, there are some – serious question have been raised. We have had – we had extensive conversations with British and Scottish authorities last year leading up to the decisions that was made. We had subsequent conversations with the former British Government making clear that we disagreed with the judgment that had been made. I’m not aware that we have brought this issue up with the new British Government. But we will obviously review the letters that we’ve received, respond to them, and at that point we’ll make a judgment as to whether we think the actions that they have recommended are appropriate.
QUESTION: Can you take the question then – the letter is indeed on its way to you right now, you personally. Can you take the question once you’ve gotten it as to whether you think a State Department investigation is merited in this case?
MR CROWLEY: Well, let me say that we – when we receive correspondence from members of Congress, we respond to them. We will respond to this letter and I will make note that when we respond to it we will find a way to communicate whether we think the steps that they’ve taken in these various letters are appropriate.
[The Scotsman's report on the issue, headlined "US senators step up pressure for inquiry into release of Megrahi" can be read here. The readers' comments that follow, as is so often the case with The Scotsman, are much more interesting than the report itself.]
QUESTION: We went over this a little bit yesterday about Mr Megrahi, the Libyan bomber of Pan Am 103, about the fact that he kind of seemed to have lived a lot longer than doctors predicted. But now the senators that we talked about yesterday, they’re also raising the issue that – asking for a Senate investigation about a possible deal with BP being part of the reason why the British let him go. Can you – do you support the senators’ calls for an investigation and are you at all concerned that oil and trade deals were part of the deal? I know we talked about it a little yesterday.
MR CROWLEY: Well, again, as to the reason why Scottish authorities made the decision that they made, we will leave it to them to explain why they made that decision. But the basis was for making that decision, how they evaluated the medical evidence that was presented to them. As we indicated then, as I indicated yesterday, I can repeat today, we felt that his release was a mistake.
QUESTION: But do you support a British – a Senate investigation into charges that the Brits kind of traded him for a deal – for oil deals?
MR CROWLEY: I can tell you that we have received – there was mention made yesterday of a letter by a number of senators encouraging us to raise this issue with the new British Government. We have received that letter. I’m not aware that we’ve had a conversation yet with the British Government about this issue. It’s unclear that there’s anything that we can do at this point. A year ago, he was – 11 months ago he was released. We thought it was a mistake. We haven’t changed our view. He sits in Libya today and it is for Scottish authorities to explain the basis upon which they made the decision that they made. As I recall, a year ago, they indicated this was made on humanitarian grounds. We disagreed with that judgment. But I can’t offer an opinion as to whether we, the United States, ought to investigate a decision made by a previous British Government in consultation with Scottish authorities.
QUESTION: So do you want the Scottish authorities or the British Government to reinvestigate the medical evidence that was used to inform the decision to release Mr Megrahi?
MR CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we share the concerns raised in the letter to us that seems to draw – to question the medical basis upon which the Scottish authorities made the decision that they made. Again, this may well be an issue for the British Government to investigate. I’m not sure-- we regret what’s been done. I’m not sure at this point that there’s anything that we can do on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.
QUESTION: Just so we’re clear about the letters, there’s been a number of letters that have been written by these four senators. The letter that I have today – and I don’t know if it’s the same one that Elise is referring to – is dated July 13th. It asks not for a Senate investigation but for a State Department investigation into reports that BP might have sought to secure his release. The letter is addressed to Secretary Clinton. Do you have that letter, one, and do you have any intention of --
MR CROWLEY: Okay, I will --
QUESTION: -- investigating that --
MR CROWLEY: If there’s a letter that was dated today, it is possible that that is in transit to us as we speak. As to the letter that was mentioned yesterday, we, in fact, have that letter and we will respond to it. Again, there are some – serious question have been raised. We have had – we had extensive conversations with British and Scottish authorities last year leading up to the decisions that was made. We had subsequent conversations with the former British Government making clear that we disagreed with the judgment that had been made. I’m not aware that we have brought this issue up with the new British Government. But we will obviously review the letters that we’ve received, respond to them, and at that point we’ll make a judgment as to whether we think the actions that they have recommended are appropriate.
QUESTION: Can you take the question then – the letter is indeed on its way to you right now, you personally. Can you take the question once you’ve gotten it as to whether you think a State Department investigation is merited in this case?
MR CROWLEY: Well, let me say that we – when we receive correspondence from members of Congress, we respond to them. We will respond to this letter and I will make note that when we respond to it we will find a way to communicate whether we think the steps that they’ve taken in these various letters are appropriate.
[The Scotsman's report on the issue, headlined "US senators step up pressure for inquiry into release of Megrahi" can be read here. The readers' comments that follow, as is so often the case with The Scotsman, are much more interesting than the report itself.]
Decision to release Megrahi was correct
[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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)