[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The US has raised concerns about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after the foreign secretary said the decision to free him was "a mistake".
William Hague spoke to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Britain may wish to explain the circumstances behind Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release.
Four US senators believe oil giant BP lobbied for the move to secure a deal with Libya.
The Scottish government said Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds.
It has denied having any contact with BP before its decision last year to release the Libyan intelligence officer (...)
On Thursday, the US Senate foreign relations committee said it would ask BP officials to testify after the company admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya.
It confirmed it did press for a PTA because it was aware that a delay might have "negative consequences" for UK commercial interests.
But the firm said it was not involved in any discussions regarding Megrahi's release.
The bomber was released in August by Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill because he was suffering terminal prostate cancer and was said to have as little as three months to live. (...)
Meanwhile, Britain's ambassador to the United States, Nigel Sheinwald, also said the new UK government disagreed with Scotland's decision to free the bomber.
However, he said the inaccuracies over the case were harmful to the UK.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "The Scottish government had no contact from BP in relation to Mr Al-Megrahi.
"The issues being raised in the United States at present regarding BP refer to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the governments of the UK and Libya, and therefore have nothing to do with the decision on compassionate release which is a totally different process, based on entirely different criteria.
"We were always totally opposed to the prisoner transfer agreement negotiated between the UK and Libyan governments.
"The memorandum that led to the PTA was agreed without our knowledge and against our wishes."
Friday, 16 July 2010
The Lockerbie bomber? A likely story . . .
[This is the headline over a post by John Ashmore on The Staggers, the New Statesman's rolling blog. It reads in part:]
In all the furore over Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, we have lost sight of one important fact.
So, the British ambassador to the US says that the government "deeply regrets" the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Meanwhile, US senators are calling for an inquiry into allegations that BP lobbied the British government to let Megrahi go in order to protect their interests in Libya.
News of his release on compassionate grounds a year ago prompted a similar wave of indignation. The papers bleated about Megrahi showing no compassion to his victims, that this was not "justice", and that the government was ignoring the victims of the bombing. (...)
What is rarely mentioned amid all the outrage is that there is considerable doubt over Megrahi's guilt.
As the late Paul Foot pointed out, having sat through the whole of Megrahi's trial at [Zeist] in 2001, the prosecution's case was farcical.
That Megrahi felt the need to write 300 pages about his innocence is odd -- one ought to have sufficed.
To summarise, Megrahi is meant to have planted a bomb on a plane in Malta, which then travelled on to Frankfurt, and then on again to Heathrow, before finally exploding on Pan Am Flight 103 in the sky above Lockerbie. We are supposed to believe, then, that the bomb got on to three planes in a row without being detected. It seems a lot more likely that the bomb was planted at London than anywhere else.
In their judgment, the three judges at the [Zeist] trial also pointed out that there was nothing that proved Megrahi had put a bomb on the plane in Malta. They noted: "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 [Air Malta] is a major difficulty for the Crown case."
What's more, Megrahi was apparently aided by a conspirator, yet his co-accused at the Hague trial was unanimously acquitted.
The prosecution's star witness was Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who claimed to remember Megrahi buying clothes from his shop. These clothes apparently found their way into the case in which the bomb was concealed.
Gauci also said, however, that he remembered it raining on the day Megrahi came in, yet meteorological records show this was not the case. This does not discount Gauci's testimony, but it must give pause for thought.
His claim to be able to remember and identify a single customer many months after he apparently entered his shop is much more difficult to sustain. Again, the court expressed its reservations, saying that "Mr Gauci's initial description to DCI Bell would not in a number of respects fit the first accused" (Megrahi).
Perhaps those calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of this man's release should dig a little deeper into how he was convicted in the first place.
[The readers' comments that follow the post point out other problems that beset Megrahi's conviction.]
In all the furore over Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, we have lost sight of one important fact.
So, the British ambassador to the US says that the government "deeply regrets" the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Meanwhile, US senators are calling for an inquiry into allegations that BP lobbied the British government to let Megrahi go in order to protect their interests in Libya.
News of his release on compassionate grounds a year ago prompted a similar wave of indignation. The papers bleated about Megrahi showing no compassion to his victims, that this was not "justice", and that the government was ignoring the victims of the bombing. (...)
What is rarely mentioned amid all the outrage is that there is considerable doubt over Megrahi's guilt.
As the late Paul Foot pointed out, having sat through the whole of Megrahi's trial at [Zeist] in 2001, the prosecution's case was farcical.
That Megrahi felt the need to write 300 pages about his innocence is odd -- one ought to have sufficed.
To summarise, Megrahi is meant to have planted a bomb on a plane in Malta, which then travelled on to Frankfurt, and then on again to Heathrow, before finally exploding on Pan Am Flight 103 in the sky above Lockerbie. We are supposed to believe, then, that the bomb got on to three planes in a row without being detected. It seems a lot more likely that the bomb was planted at London than anywhere else.
In their judgment, the three judges at the [Zeist] trial also pointed out that there was nothing that proved Megrahi had put a bomb on the plane in Malta. They noted: "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 [Air Malta] is a major difficulty for the Crown case."
What's more, Megrahi was apparently aided by a conspirator, yet his co-accused at the Hague trial was unanimously acquitted.
The prosecution's star witness was Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who claimed to remember Megrahi buying clothes from his shop. These clothes apparently found their way into the case in which the bomb was concealed.
Gauci also said, however, that he remembered it raining on the day Megrahi came in, yet meteorological records show this was not the case. This does not discount Gauci's testimony, but it must give pause for thought.
His claim to be able to remember and identify a single customer many months after he apparently entered his shop is much more difficult to sustain. Again, the court expressed its reservations, saying that "Mr Gauci's initial description to DCI Bell would not in a number of respects fit the first accused" (Megrahi).
Perhaps those calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of this man's release should dig a little deeper into how he was convicted in the first place.
[The readers' comments that follow the post point out other problems that beset Megrahi's conviction.]
BP, the USA and the repatriation of Megrahi
[Today's edition of The Herald contains two letters on the current furore over BP and its alleged role in the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The first, from Dr Jim Swire, reads:]
Any genuine attempt to uncover any aspect of the truth about the Lockerbie disaster and its aftermath is welcome (“Clinton to probe BP link to Megrahi”, The Herald, July 15).
But unless Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, believes that our new coalition government is so keen to castigate our previous administration that it would be glad to cooperate, she can hardly call upon the UK government to explain itself. Would that not be to put the fox in charge of the hencoop?
She would soon see how desperate Jack Straw (as Justice Minister) was to push through the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) in time for the start of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s second appeal, even overriding the request of the House of Commons Select Committee on Human Rights for more time.
She might then stop to wonder what the motivation might have been for Straw’s clumsy haste, and why the UK authorities seem to have been desperate to neutralise Megrahi’s attempts to overturn a verdict influenced by multiple instances of government and Crown Office withholding of documents from the defence and indeed the court.
Interference in criminal justice for political reasons would be a far more serious charge than a mere grubby oil deal, of which there are so many examples in both our and her own country’s history.
As her husband once commented: “It’s the economy, stupid”, and oil is central to the economies of both our nations but, currently, flogging BP is such a popular cause in the US.
Clinton would find that the PTA from “the deal in the desert” was not, in fact, used by Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary. He used the compassionate release route which was no part of that deal but is a precedent in our criminal law, and which did not dictate the withdrawal of Megrahi’s appeal. His decision weakens the scope for bashing BP. But, then, what influenced his choice?
The US is often accused of seeking to impose its own law overseas. Bill Clinton’s brave decision to allow the holding of the Lockerbie trial outwith the US removed the near certainty of a summary death penalty for Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhima, his co-defendant. Subsequent doubts amplified by our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have amply justified that relief.
[The second, from Iain A D Mann, reads:]
Why do Americans always think they have a God-given right to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations? Pan-Am flight 103 fell to earth in Scotland, which, under international law, meant that all investigations and subsequent trials and criminal prosecutions came under the jurisdiction of Scots law.
If former barrister Tony Blair did not understand or ignored this when he made a deal with [Colonel] Gaddafi to release Megrahi (as I suspect he did), that does not alter the fact. And if the deal was made in exchange for Libyan oil concessions to BP (which I suspect it was), neither Blair nor the UK government was in a position to deliver the prisoner exchange. Many like me have concerns about the trial and conviction of Megrahi, but it was carried out under the independent Scottish justice system, as was the decision of Kenny MacAskill to release him on compassionate grounds.
What do the Americans find difficult to understand and accept about this? If the situation were reversed, would they be willing to let British politicians interfere in the US judicial process? I find distasteful the apparent American thirst for revenge and retribution, as if incarcerating one terminally-ill old man in a prison cell would make them feel better and somehow assuage the tragic loss of so many American (and Scottish) lives. Has it never occurred to them to wonder why Libya would have wanted to undertake such a massive operation against the United States, and why a low-ranking Libyan security officer would have been entrusted with the operation?
Is it not more likely that another country was responsible, in direct retaliation for the reckless shooting down of one of their civilian air liners by a US warship just five months earlier?
And is it not strange that the [Maltese] shopkeeper who provided virtually the only evidence of Megrahi’s involvement was later financed by the CIA and set up in a new life in Australia?
The American senators and Hillary Clinton would be better engaged in addressing some of the many short comings in their own criminal justice system, including holding untried foreigners for years at Guantanamo Bay and many convicted prisoners for 25 years on death row before executing them, rather than criticising the British and Scottish legal systems, which still try to uphold the principles of both justice and compassion.
Any genuine attempt to uncover any aspect of the truth about the Lockerbie disaster and its aftermath is welcome (“Clinton to probe BP link to Megrahi”, The Herald, July 15).
But unless Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, believes that our new coalition government is so keen to castigate our previous administration that it would be glad to cooperate, she can hardly call upon the UK government to explain itself. Would that not be to put the fox in charge of the hencoop?
She would soon see how desperate Jack Straw (as Justice Minister) was to push through the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) in time for the start of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s second appeal, even overriding the request of the House of Commons Select Committee on Human Rights for more time.
She might then stop to wonder what the motivation might have been for Straw’s clumsy haste, and why the UK authorities seem to have been desperate to neutralise Megrahi’s attempts to overturn a verdict influenced by multiple instances of government and Crown Office withholding of documents from the defence and indeed the court.
Interference in criminal justice for political reasons would be a far more serious charge than a mere grubby oil deal, of which there are so many examples in both our and her own country’s history.
As her husband once commented: “It’s the economy, stupid”, and oil is central to the economies of both our nations but, currently, flogging BP is such a popular cause in the US.
Clinton would find that the PTA from “the deal in the desert” was not, in fact, used by Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary. He used the compassionate release route which was no part of that deal but is a precedent in our criminal law, and which did not dictate the withdrawal of Megrahi’s appeal. His decision weakens the scope for bashing BP. But, then, what influenced his choice?
The US is often accused of seeking to impose its own law overseas. Bill Clinton’s brave decision to allow the holding of the Lockerbie trial outwith the US removed the near certainty of a summary death penalty for Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhima, his co-defendant. Subsequent doubts amplified by our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have amply justified that relief.
[The second, from Iain A D Mann, reads:]
Why do Americans always think they have a God-given right to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations? Pan-Am flight 103 fell to earth in Scotland, which, under international law, meant that all investigations and subsequent trials and criminal prosecutions came under the jurisdiction of Scots law.
If former barrister Tony Blair did not understand or ignored this when he made a deal with [Colonel] Gaddafi to release Megrahi (as I suspect he did), that does not alter the fact. And if the deal was made in exchange for Libyan oil concessions to BP (which I suspect it was), neither Blair nor the UK government was in a position to deliver the prisoner exchange. Many like me have concerns about the trial and conviction of Megrahi, but it was carried out under the independent Scottish justice system, as was the decision of Kenny MacAskill to release him on compassionate grounds.
What do the Americans find difficult to understand and accept about this? If the situation were reversed, would they be willing to let British politicians interfere in the US judicial process? I find distasteful the apparent American thirst for revenge and retribution, as if incarcerating one terminally-ill old man in a prison cell would make them feel better and somehow assuage the tragic loss of so many American (and Scottish) lives. Has it never occurred to them to wonder why Libya would have wanted to undertake such a massive operation against the United States, and why a low-ranking Libyan security officer would have been entrusted with the operation?
Is it not more likely that another country was responsible, in direct retaliation for the reckless shooting down of one of their civilian air liners by a US warship just five months earlier?
And is it not strange that the [Maltese] shopkeeper who provided virtually the only evidence of Megrahi’s involvement was later financed by the CIA and set up in a new life in Australia?
The American senators and Hillary Clinton would be better engaged in addressing some of the many short comings in their own criminal justice system, including holding untried foreigners for years at Guantanamo Bay and many convicted prisoners for 25 years on death row before executing them, rather than criticising the British and Scottish legal systems, which still try to uphold the principles of both justice and compassion.
Lockerbie: unfinished business
The Edinburgh Festival Fringe production of this one-man play runs from 4 to 29 August at the Gilded Balloon Teviot venue. Further details can be obtained here -- go to page 267.
The Lockerbie Conspiracy
[This is the headline over a long article by Alex Massie in his blog on the website of The Spectator. It reads in part:]
First things first: it is extremely inconvenient, even embarrassing, that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is still alive nearly a year after he was released from Greenock Prison on the grounds that he was believed to have not much more, and perhaps fewer, than three months to live. Nevertheless, the fact that he has lived longer than expected does not advance or give any greater credence to the notion that there was some conspiracy designed to free him come what may and regardless of any other considerations.
Nor is there any evidence, despite recent press reports, that BP (everyone's favourite whipping boy now) played any role in Kenny MacAskill's decision to send him back to Libya. One may reasonably think, as the British government does, that MacAskill's decision was a mistake but that does not mean that, as matters were understood at the time, the Justice Secretary was either wrong or acting on behalf of other interests.
I'd go further: the fact that Megrahi is still alive does not enhance conspiracy theories, it makes them even less probable than their previous improbability suggested. But, wait, there's an oil company "involved"! And it's BP! QED!
There are two seperate issues that, unfortunately, continue to be conflated by people who ought to know better. Unsurprisingly this company includes several members of the United States Senate whose grandstanding is equalled only by their ignorance. Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, Lautenberg and Menendez have written to Hillary Clinton demanding some kind of pointless investigation into "links" between BP and the decision to release Megrahi.
Unfortunately their request is predicated upon nonsense and, for that matter, riddled with errors. Among them:
1. No "Scottish court" ordered that Megrahi be released. It was a matter for the Justice Secretary and him alone.
2. The prognosis given by Karel Sikora and the other doctors paid by the Libyan government played no part in MacAskill's decision. He never saw Sikora's report. The decision was made on the basis of reports compiled by Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor in the Scottish Prison Service. These drew on the findings of at least two other independent consultants.
3. If BP really was lobbying the British government for Megrahi's "release" it was lobbying the wrong people since the British government did not have competence in this matter. Again, and evidently this still needs to be spelt out, London could no more approve Megrahi's release than could Timbuktu. (...)
John F Burns is a great journalist but the opening paragraph of his most recent New York Times report helps demonstrate why so many people remain so confused:
"The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans."
But a Prisoner Transfer Agreement says nothing about releasing prisoners. On the contrary it is, as the name suggests, an agreement about transferring inmates from prison in one jurisdiction to prison in another. That is, even the Libyans weren't lobbying for Megrahi's release. They merely wanted him to be eligible to be transferred to a Libyan gaol where he could serve the rest of his sentence.
So what do we have here? Let's review the matter one more time:
1. Libya and the UK wanted to sign a PTA as part of the normalisation of relations between the two countries.
2. Libya made it clear to BP that a PTA would help BP's commercial interests in the Gulf of Sidra.
3. BP also pointed out to HMG (Her Majesty's Government) that signing the PTA would be very useful.
4. The Scottish Government was keen to exclude Megrahi from the terms of any such agreement.
5. The Libyans told London that it would be absurd to have a PTA that excluded the only high-profile Libyan in British custody.
6. Despite Edinburgh's concerns, London came around to agreeing with the Libyans and so, when signed, the PTA contained no clause excluding Megrahi from its provisions.
7. Signing the PTA most probably did help BP's commercial interests in Libya. Then again, BP's initial deal with Libya was signed in 2007 - well before any of the Megrahi business came to a head and well before there could be any consideration of releasing him.
8. So what if BP did benefit? The existence of the PTA did nothing to improve Megrahi's chances of being released. (Here I would note that Edinburgh's desire for a Megrahi Exception made little sense since the decision on his future would, as it always had been, remain a matter for Edinburgh. London gave Tripoli something Tripoli wanted badly but London did not have to give up anything in return since, again, what Tripoli wanted was not in London's gift.)
9. Libya made an application to the Scottish Government asking that Megrahi be transferred to serve the remainder of his sentence in a Libyan prison.
10. The Scottish Government considered this application and then, based in part upon its understanding that assurances had been given to the United States that Megrahi would serve his entire sentence in Scotland, rejected Libya's application.
11. Again, signing a PTA with Libya - which London was keen to do - is an entirely seperate issue from the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
12. We are now in the odd position that those who think there was a conspiracy need Megrahi to live for years while those who think MacAskill made the decision honestly would be relieved if he died next week.
13. Not a single credible report has emerged disputing that MacAskill made his decision according to the medical facts as he saw and understood them at the time.
14. The fact that Megrahi has "outperformed" medical expectations says much more about medical science than it does about Kenny MacAskill.
15. If much of the press reporting is to be given credence we are asked to suppose that MacAskill would have released Megrahi come what may. This, of course, is because of BP and HMG and all the rest of it. But for this to be true we have to believe that if the doctors had said Megrahi's prostate cancer was not so serious and he'd live for another year at least MacAskill would have said, Well that doesn't matter I'm going to release him anyway and so what if this rides roughshod over both established practice and the law? I want to be a Big Boy playing on the big stage. I suggest that this is implausible.
16. For there to be a conspiracy we need to believe that two (three if you include Libya) jurisdictions were involved and that this included several government departments and the Scottish Prison Service and at least two independent consultants. And BP of course. Again, I suggest that this is not credible. For a conspiracy to have any credence you need to believe that Edinburgh was determined to release Megrahi at any or all costs. There is precisely zero evidence to support this notion.
None of this means there aren't perfectly good grounds upon which to oppose or criticise MacAskill's decision. Good people may disagree in good faith upon this question. But that's a long way from supposing that there was some conspiracy or that the medical evidence was fabricated or that BP was secretly running the entire show.
This blog's Lockerbie archive is here and, more or less, I stand by pretty much everything I wrote nearly a year ago. Megrahi's survival is inconvenient and, yes, embarrassing but that doesn't mean there was any conspiracy to release him. Nor does it in and of itself suggest that MacAskill was acting in anything other than good faith at any point in proceedings.
Yet, again, for there to have been a conspiracy you need to believe that if the doctors had told MacAskill that Megrahi would live for another year he'd have been released anyway. Never mind that, as I understand it, this would have been beyond his purview it makes no sense even if you want to believe in it.
You can certainly argue that convicted terrorists should never be released but that's an entirely different question. But cock-up - or rather the vagaries of medical prognosis - is a likelier explanation of all this than conspiracy not least because there is precisely no evidence of there being any conspiracy.
First things first: it is extremely inconvenient, even embarrassing, that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is still alive nearly a year after he was released from Greenock Prison on the grounds that he was believed to have not much more, and perhaps fewer, than three months to live. Nevertheless, the fact that he has lived longer than expected does not advance or give any greater credence to the notion that there was some conspiracy designed to free him come what may and regardless of any other considerations.
Nor is there any evidence, despite recent press reports, that BP (everyone's favourite whipping boy now) played any role in Kenny MacAskill's decision to send him back to Libya. One may reasonably think, as the British government does, that MacAskill's decision was a mistake but that does not mean that, as matters were understood at the time, the Justice Secretary was either wrong or acting on behalf of other interests.
I'd go further: the fact that Megrahi is still alive does not enhance conspiracy theories, it makes them even less probable than their previous improbability suggested. But, wait, there's an oil company "involved"! And it's BP! QED!
There are two seperate issues that, unfortunately, continue to be conflated by people who ought to know better. Unsurprisingly this company includes several members of the United States Senate whose grandstanding is equalled only by their ignorance. Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, Lautenberg and Menendez have written to Hillary Clinton demanding some kind of pointless investigation into "links" between BP and the decision to release Megrahi.
Unfortunately their request is predicated upon nonsense and, for that matter, riddled with errors. Among them:
1. No "Scottish court" ordered that Megrahi be released. It was a matter for the Justice Secretary and him alone.
2. The prognosis given by Karel Sikora and the other doctors paid by the Libyan government played no part in MacAskill's decision. He never saw Sikora's report. The decision was made on the basis of reports compiled by Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor in the Scottish Prison Service. These drew on the findings of at least two other independent consultants.
3. If BP really was lobbying the British government for Megrahi's "release" it was lobbying the wrong people since the British government did not have competence in this matter. Again, and evidently this still needs to be spelt out, London could no more approve Megrahi's release than could Timbuktu. (...)
John F Burns is a great journalist but the opening paragraph of his most recent New York Times report helps demonstrate why so many people remain so confused:
"The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans."
But a Prisoner Transfer Agreement says nothing about releasing prisoners. On the contrary it is, as the name suggests, an agreement about transferring inmates from prison in one jurisdiction to prison in another. That is, even the Libyans weren't lobbying for Megrahi's release. They merely wanted him to be eligible to be transferred to a Libyan gaol where he could serve the rest of his sentence.
So what do we have here? Let's review the matter one more time:
1. Libya and the UK wanted to sign a PTA as part of the normalisation of relations between the two countries.
2. Libya made it clear to BP that a PTA would help BP's commercial interests in the Gulf of Sidra.
3. BP also pointed out to HMG (Her Majesty's Government) that signing the PTA would be very useful.
4. The Scottish Government was keen to exclude Megrahi from the terms of any such agreement.
5. The Libyans told London that it would be absurd to have a PTA that excluded the only high-profile Libyan in British custody.
6. Despite Edinburgh's concerns, London came around to agreeing with the Libyans and so, when signed, the PTA contained no clause excluding Megrahi from its provisions.
7. Signing the PTA most probably did help BP's commercial interests in Libya. Then again, BP's initial deal with Libya was signed in 2007 - well before any of the Megrahi business came to a head and well before there could be any consideration of releasing him.
8. So what if BP did benefit? The existence of the PTA did nothing to improve Megrahi's chances of being released. (Here I would note that Edinburgh's desire for a Megrahi Exception made little sense since the decision on his future would, as it always had been, remain a matter for Edinburgh. London gave Tripoli something Tripoli wanted badly but London did not have to give up anything in return since, again, what Tripoli wanted was not in London's gift.)
9. Libya made an application to the Scottish Government asking that Megrahi be transferred to serve the remainder of his sentence in a Libyan prison.
10. The Scottish Government considered this application and then, based in part upon its understanding that assurances had been given to the United States that Megrahi would serve his entire sentence in Scotland, rejected Libya's application.
11. Again, signing a PTA with Libya - which London was keen to do - is an entirely seperate issue from the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
12. We are now in the odd position that those who think there was a conspiracy need Megrahi to live for years while those who think MacAskill made the decision honestly would be relieved if he died next week.
13. Not a single credible report has emerged disputing that MacAskill made his decision according to the medical facts as he saw and understood them at the time.
14. The fact that Megrahi has "outperformed" medical expectations says much more about medical science than it does about Kenny MacAskill.
15. If much of the press reporting is to be given credence we are asked to suppose that MacAskill would have released Megrahi come what may. This, of course, is because of BP and HMG and all the rest of it. But for this to be true we have to believe that if the doctors had said Megrahi's prostate cancer was not so serious and he'd live for another year at least MacAskill would have said, Well that doesn't matter I'm going to release him anyway and so what if this rides roughshod over both established practice and the law? I want to be a Big Boy playing on the big stage. I suggest that this is implausible.
16. For there to be a conspiracy we need to believe that two (three if you include Libya) jurisdictions were involved and that this included several government departments and the Scottish Prison Service and at least two independent consultants. And BP of course. Again, I suggest that this is not credible. For a conspiracy to have any credence you need to believe that Edinburgh was determined to release Megrahi at any or all costs. There is precisely zero evidence to support this notion.
None of this means there aren't perfectly good grounds upon which to oppose or criticise MacAskill's decision. Good people may disagree in good faith upon this question. But that's a long way from supposing that there was some conspiracy or that the medical evidence was fabricated or that BP was secretly running the entire show.
This blog's Lockerbie archive is here and, more or less, I stand by pretty much everything I wrote nearly a year ago. Megrahi's survival is inconvenient and, yes, embarrassing but that doesn't mean there was any conspiracy to release him. Nor does it in and of itself suggest that MacAskill was acting in anything other than good faith at any point in proceedings.
Yet, again, for there to have been a conspiracy you need to believe that if the doctors had told MacAskill that Megrahi would live for another year he'd have been released anyway. Never mind that, as I understand it, this would have been beyond his purview it makes no sense even if you want to believe in it.
You can certainly argue that convicted terrorists should never be released but that's an entirely different question. But cock-up - or rather the vagaries of medical prognosis - is a likelier explanation of all this than conspiracy not least because there is precisely no evidence of there being any conspiracy.
Senate panel sets hearing on BP-Lockerbie case
[This is the headline over a report on the website of the Reuters news agency. It reads in part:]
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a July 29 hearing into last year's release of a Libyan convicted for the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, and related actions by BP.
The committee said on Thursday it will ask officials of BP plc to testify after the UK-based oil giant acknowledged that it had lobbied the British government in 2007 to agree to transfer Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi to Tripoli. The company said it was concerned that his continued imprisonment in Scotland could negatively affect an offshore oil drilling deal with Libya.
"BP told the UK government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya," BP said in a statement.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who had opposed Megrahi's release, said "details that have emerged in recent days in the press have raised new concerns."
Britain's ambassador to Washington sent a letter to Kerry on Thursday "to explain the facts" surrounding the circumstances of Megrahi's release.
"Under Scottish law, Megrahi was entitled to be considered for release on compassionate grounds. Whilst we disagreed with the decision to release him, we have to respect the independence of the process," Sir Nigel Sheinwald said in the letter.
"I am troubled by the claims made in the press that Megrahi was released because of an oil deal involving BP, and that the medical evidence supporting his release was paid for by the Libyan government. Both of these allegations are untrue," Sheinwald added.
Sheinwald said he hoped his letter would help to set the record straight and correct inaccuracies that he said were harmful to the United Kingdom. (...)
The Senate panel said it will ask "government experts" to testify at the hearing, but did not release details on witnesses it plans to invite.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would look into a request by several senators that her agency investigate.
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a July 29 hearing into last year's release of a Libyan convicted for the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, and related actions by BP.
The committee said on Thursday it will ask officials of BP plc to testify after the UK-based oil giant acknowledged that it had lobbied the British government in 2007 to agree to transfer Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi to Tripoli. The company said it was concerned that his continued imprisonment in Scotland could negatively affect an offshore oil drilling deal with Libya.
"BP told the UK government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya," BP said in a statement.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who had opposed Megrahi's release, said "details that have emerged in recent days in the press have raised new concerns."
Britain's ambassador to Washington sent a letter to Kerry on Thursday "to explain the facts" surrounding the circumstances of Megrahi's release.
"Under Scottish law, Megrahi was entitled to be considered for release on compassionate grounds. Whilst we disagreed with the decision to release him, we have to respect the independence of the process," Sir Nigel Sheinwald said in the letter.
"I am troubled by the claims made in the press that Megrahi was released because of an oil deal involving BP, and that the medical evidence supporting his release was paid for by the Libyan government. Both of these allegations are untrue," Sheinwald added.
Sheinwald said he hoped his letter would help to set the record straight and correct inaccuracies that he said were harmful to the United Kingdom. (...)
The Senate panel said it will ask "government experts" to testify at the hearing, but did not release details on witnesses it plans to invite.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would look into a request by several senators that her agency investigate.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Sheinwald: mistake to free Lockerbie bomber
[What follows is an Agence France Presse news agency report:]
The government believes that the decision by Scotland to free the Lockerbie bomber was a mistake, London's envoy to the United States said Thursday.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of a US Pan Am jumbo jet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which left 270 people dead.
"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," ambassador Nigel Sheinwald said, stressing that under the country's laws power over justice issues have been devolved to Scotland.
Megrahi was released from jail in Scottish prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he was said to be suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. Reports have now emerged that he could live at least another 10 years.
On Tuesday, four US senators also called for an inquiry into allegations that energy giant BP lobbied the British government to free Megrahi in order to protect a lucrative oil deal with Libya.
[The ambassador to Washington DC, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, was Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the prime minister, Tony Blair, from 2003 to 2007. It is a matter for mild cynical amusement that Sheinwald was present at, and intimately involved in, the negotiation of the deal in the desert which was intended to pave the way for Abdelbaset Megrahi's early repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement. The UK negotiators did not realise that the power to allow transfer would rest, not with the UK but with the Scottish, Government. Or if the negotiators did realise this, they signally failed to inform their Libyan counterparts, to the disgust of the latter when they discovered what the true position was.
There is a related long report on the Channel 4 News website and another one on The Guardian website. This also contains a clarification of Professor Karol Sikora's views on Megrahi's survival prospects:]
New York Democrat senators Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and New Jersey Democrat Senator Robert Menendez called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert, who backed the three-month prognosis, now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.
But yesterday, Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, said his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were "less than 1%".
He said: "There was a greater than 50% chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less.
"So the chances of living 10 years is less than 1%, something like that."
The government believes that the decision by Scotland to free the Lockerbie bomber was a mistake, London's envoy to the United States said Thursday.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of a US Pan Am jumbo jet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which left 270 people dead.
"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," ambassador Nigel Sheinwald said, stressing that under the country's laws power over justice issues have been devolved to Scotland.
Megrahi was released from jail in Scottish prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he was said to be suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. Reports have now emerged that he could live at least another 10 years.
On Tuesday, four US senators also called for an inquiry into allegations that energy giant BP lobbied the British government to free Megrahi in order to protect a lucrative oil deal with Libya.
[The ambassador to Washington DC, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, was Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the prime minister, Tony Blair, from 2003 to 2007. It is a matter for mild cynical amusement that Sheinwald was present at, and intimately involved in, the negotiation of the deal in the desert which was intended to pave the way for Abdelbaset Megrahi's early repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement. The UK negotiators did not realise that the power to allow transfer would rest, not with the UK but with the Scottish, Government. Or if the negotiators did realise this, they signally failed to inform their Libyan counterparts, to the disgust of the latter when they discovered what the true position was.
There is a related long report on the Channel 4 News website and another one on The Guardian website. This also contains a clarification of Professor Karol Sikora's views on Megrahi's survival prospects:]
New York Democrat senators Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and New Jersey Democrat Senator Robert Menendez called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert, who backed the three-month prognosis, now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.
But yesterday, Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, said his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were "less than 1%".
He said: "There was a greater than 50% chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less.
"So the chances of living 10 years is less than 1%, something like that."
The type of investigation really needed
[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.]
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.]
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)