Scots won't testify to Congress about Lockerbie bomber's release

[This is the headline over a report just published on the ABC News website. It reads in part:]

Top Scottish officials have declined an invitation to appear before a Senate panel investigating allegations of fraud and corporate pressure that may have led to the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset al Megrahi, ABC News has learned.

In a letter sent yesterday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass, formally invited Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill to appear before a July 29 hearing on the topic, chaired by New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez.

In response to Kerry's letter, Salmond denied the allegations levied by a group of US senators and said his letter explaining his government's position would suffice.

"I believe that I have offered all assistance that could reasonably be expected of an overseas government and respectfully decline your invitation for Scottish ministers to appear at the hearing," Salmond wrote in a letter dated today.

[A report on the Telegraph website contains the following:]

Susan Cohen lost her only daughter, Theodora, in the bombing. Speaking from her home in New Jersey, she said: “This is just the sort of stonewalling governments do.

“He doesn’t want to be asked any tough questions and see his lies unravelling. I think they want it to go away. How can they believe BP had nothing to do with it?”

Annabel Goldie, Scottish Tory leader, said: “A no-show would only fuel suspicion that they have something to hide. We need clarity, not confusion.”

Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said: “Kenny MacAskill is running away from criticism as fast as Alex Salmond is running away from responsibility for the decision.

“Only Kenny MacAskill can explain his decision to release the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity committed on Scottish soil.”

[The report on the refusal to attend on the BBC News website also contains comments from Dr Hans Koechler.]

Salmond pressed to instigate inquiry into Pan Am 103 by international coalition ...

[This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

First Minister Alex Salmond has been called upon by an international coalition of signatories including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, academic Professor Noam Chomsky, former Father of the House Tam Dalyell and Professor Robert Black QC to institute a "full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy."

The call comes amidst growing international clamour for an investigation, triggered initially by US Senators who wished to probe the connections between the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi and oil company BP. A letter endorsed by all the signatories, including relatives groups and the Justice for Megrahi campaign, calls on Salmond to initiate an inquiry "to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day."

Others, such as Dr Hans Koechler and MSP Christine Grahame, as well as newspaper Leaders across the UK, have called separately for a wider analysis of the circumstances surrounding the Pan Am 103 affair and the discredited conviction against Al Megrahi.

"In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release. In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition)" the letter to Salmond says.

"Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.

"From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair."

The Firm's Editor Steven Raeburn was also asked to sign the original petition in September 2009, in addition to tonight's letter to Salmond, and has done so.

"Given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow," the letter adds.

"We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start."

The letter marks one of the the final public acts of Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, who announced his retirement from public life today.

[The full text of the letter to the First Minister can be read here.]

We need a full Lockerbie inquiry

[This is the headline over an editorial in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

It is unfortunate for David Cameron that his first official visit to the US as Prime Minister coincides with BP’s disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Doubly so that a deal over drilling rights for BP in Libya has been conflated with the freeing on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. As a result the Prime Minister has been caught up in a wave of anti-British sentiment founded on a massive misunderstanding of the circumstances leading to his release.

Ever since PanAm flight 103 was blown apart over Lockerbie killing 270 people nearly 22 years ago the complex background to the terror attack has spawned multiple conspiracy theories. It is therefore not surprising that Americans shocked at the release of a Libyan convicted of mass murder should link his release with an agreement over the transfer of prisoners concluded between the UK and Libyan governments a few months earlier.

Even the most cynical, however, ought to be convinced [of] the genuine anger of the Scottish Government over the “deal in the desert” between Col Muammar Gadafi and Tony Blair. The decision by the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release Megrahi was not made under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) but entirely on compassionate grounds on the basis of medical advice that he was not likely to live for more than around three months. The fact that he has survived for much longer than expected, although remaining terminally ill, does not negate the basis on which the decision was made, which was in accordance with a legal process that has been applied to other prisoners in similar circumstances. There was never any question of trading justice for oil and Alex Salmond’s hard-hitting letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations outlining the Scottish Government’s opposition to the PTA is a necessary clarification of the basis for Megrahi’s release.

It is essential that as much documentation as possible relating to the decision to release him is made available. So far the Scottish Government has published those for which they have permission. Cameron’s decision to ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the documentation and publish what is available is welcome.

The PTA agreement, howevwer, is a different matter. BP has already acknowledged that it lobbied for an agreement but some obscurity remains over the details of the negotiations between the UK and Libyan governments. Any US senators who are not reassured by Salmond’s letter should direct their questions there.

Cameron has indicated that if any fresh concerns arise over the release he would consider an inquiry. But it is not the release of Megrahi which is at issue.

The basis of conviction is an entirely different matter. Lockerbie is unfinished business that will not end with Megrahi’s death. That can only be achieved by a wide-ranging, independent inquiry with the power to demand all the available documentation. That is what should be assessed.

[A report in the same newspaper headed "Cameron says public inquiry over Megrahi still on the table" reads in part:]

David Cameron has not ruled out a UK public inquiry into the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as pressure mounts on both sides of the Atlantic for a full investigation.

Last night, the Prime Minister insisted that while “we should not leap to an inquiry”, he acknowledged that if the forthcoming trawl of documents by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, throws up new evidence about the circumstances surrounding Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release, then “yes, we might have to look again” at holding one. (...)

Calls for an independent inquiry have been mounting over the past 24 hours.

Hans Koechler, the UN-nominated international observer at the Lockerbie trial, said: “The families of the victims deserve better and the rule of law requires more.

“The full truth of the Lockerbie tragedy must be known; the possible role of BP in the release of the only person convicted is only one of many aspects that would have to be investigated.”

He added the “real motives” of Kenny MacAskill had to be revealed and an inquiry should address why the Scottish Justice Secretary took the “unprecedented step” of visiting Megrahi in jail.

Asked about the criticism he was receiving from Obama and Cameron, MacAskill told Sky News: “It was a decision that they did not have to take and therefore they have the luxury of criticising it from the sidelines. I respect their judgments on a variety of matters but I had to deal with this matter holding true to the values of the people of Scotland, and that is why I stand by it.”

Professor Robert Black, Emeritus Professor in Law at Edinburgh University and an expert on the Megrahi case, called for a joint inquiry by the UK and Scottish Government.

He added that there should be a “broader inquiry into the whole circumstances, his conviction as well as his release”.

Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the 1988 bombing, has written to Senator John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will next week hold a hearing on the Megrahi case. Swire tells Kerry: “Please do not allow your determination to investigate this tragedy be thwarted by any one, it will be a tough call but we relatives have a right to the whole truth.”

In his letter to the committee chairman, Alex Salmond stresses how the Scottish Government would be willing to co-operate with any inquiry. He says: “The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

[Yet another report in the same newspaper contains the following paragraphs:]

However, Megrahi dropped his appeal in August as he attempted to clear the way for his return home. Release under the PTA cannot be considered if there are any outstanding legal issues. However, the appeal had no bearing on his application for compassionate release, which was approved.

Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie bombing, said on Megrahi’s release that he would continue with the appeal on his behalf, if possible.

However, it is unlikely the appeal could move forward while Megrahi is still alive. The SCCRC would be unlikely to agree that it was in the interests of justice to proceed, when Megrahi gave up his chance to prove his innocence.

It is thought that relatives of those who died in the bombing would be well placed to take the appeal forward once Megrahi dies.

[The seven readers' letters in The Herald on the subject are well worth reading.]

How Megrahi and Libya were framed for Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article by Alexander Cockburn on The First Post website. It reads in part:]

Amid all the bellowing about the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in 1988, all current commentary ignores the hippo in the room - which is the powerful evidence that Megrahi was innocent, framed by the US and British security services and originally found guilty because Scottish judges had their arms brutally twisted by Westminster. The conviction was one of the great judicial scandals of the 20th Century.

The original Lockerbie trial took place in 2000, in Zeist, Holland. It was presided over by three Scottish judges who travelled to the Netherlands courthouse, convicting Megrahi and acquitting his colleague, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah.

In a trenchant early criticism of the verdict, Hans Koechler, a distinguished Austrian philosopher appointed as one of five international observers at the trial by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, issued a well-merited denunciation of the judges' bizarre conclusion.

"In my opinion," Koechler said, "there seemed to be considerable political influence on the judges and the verdict." Koechler queried the active involvement of senior US Justice Department officials as part of the Scotch prosecution team "in a supervisory role".

In essence, the case was based (a) on the presumption that the bomb timer on the PanAm plane was from a batch sold by a Swiss firm to Libya; (b) that fragments of clothing retrieved from the crash site and identified as having been in the suitcase that contained the bomb had been bought by the accused Megrahi from a shop in Malta; and (c) that a "secret witness," Abdulmajid Gialka, a former colleague of the accused pair in the Libyan Airlines office in Malta, would testify that he had observed them either constructing the bomb or at least seen them loading it onto the plane in Frankfurt.

The prosecution was unable to produce evidence to substantiate any of these points or to encourage any confidence in Gialka's reliability as a witness. The Swiss manufacturer of the timer, Edwin Bollier, testified that he had sold timers of a similar type to the East Germans and conceded, under cross-examination by defence lawyers, that he had connections to many intelligence agencies, including not only the Libyans but also the CIA.

By the time of the trial, Gialka had been living under witness protection in the US. He had received $320,000 from his American hosts and, in the event of conviction of the accused, stood to collect up to $4 million in reward money. (...)

The prosecution's case absolutely depended on proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Megrahi was the man who bought the clothes, traced by police to a Maltese clothes shop. In 19 separate statements to police prior to the trial, the shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, had failed to make a positive identification of Megrahi.

In the witness box, Gauci was asked five times if he recognised anyone in the courtroom. No answer. Finally, the exasperated prosecutor pointed to the dock and asked if the man sitting on the left was the customer in question. The best Gauci could do was mumble that "he resembles him".

Gauci had also told the police that the man who bought the clothes was 6ft tall and over 50 years of age. Megrahi is5ft 8in tall, and in late 1988 he was 36. The clothes were bought either on November 23 or December 7, 1988. (...)

Megrahi was in Malta on December 7 but not on the November date. The shopkeeper recalled that the man who bought the clothes also bought an umbrella because it was raining heavily outside. Maltese meteorological records introduced by the defence showed clearly that while it did rain all day on November 23, there was almost certainly no rain on December 7. If it did rain on that date, the shower would have been barely enough to wet the pavement. Nevertheless, the judges held it proven that Megrahi had bought the clothes on December 7.

No less vital to the prosecution's case was its contention that the bomb that destroyed PanAm flight 103 had been loaded as unaccompanied baggage onto an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, flown on to London, and thence onto the ill-fated flight to New York. In support of this, prosecutors produced a document from Frankfurt airport indicating that a bag had gone from the baggage-handling station, at which the Air Malta bags (along with those from other flights) had been unloaded, and had been sent to the handling station for the relevant flight to London.

But there was firm evidence from the defence that all the bags on the Air Malta flight were accompanied and were collected at the other end. Nevertheless, the judges held it proven that the lethal suitcase had indeed come from Malta. (...)

The most likely explanation of the judges' decision to convict Megrahi despite the evidence, or lack of it, must be that either they panicked at the thought of the uproar that would ensue at the US end if they let both the Libyans off, or they were simply given their marching orders by high authority in London. English judges are used to doing their duty in this manner.

Back in 2000 a former CIA official told my brother, Andrew Cockburn, who undertook an investigation of the case for our newsletter CounterPunch – the factual substrate of these observations - that he had taken part in the original investigation of the PanAm bombing. He said that if the original CIA report was ever to be made public, it would provide "damning evidence" that "the Libyans were never directly involved in the Lockerbie bombing." In fact, the evidence in the CIA's possession pointed more clearly in the direction of the original suspects in the case, members of a group known as the PFLP-GC, closely linked to Iran.

The Iranians had a clear motive for an attack on an American airliner, following the destruction of an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf carrying 290 passengers, including 66 children, on July 3, 1988.

The initial US and British investigations pointed clearly to a case against the Iranians as having contracted with the Lebanon-based PFLP-GC, or a section thereof, to exact retribution.

Two months before Lockerbie, the West Germans arrested members of this group outside Dusseldorf as they were preparing bombs specifically designed to bring down airliners. US intelligence had traced a payment of $500,000 into the account of a professional bomber, Abu Talb, in April 1989.

A British journalist showed the Maltese shop owner who sold the clothes found in the PanAm bomb-suitcase a photo of Talb, and he declared that the man in the photo "most resembled" the purchaser. At one point, the Scottish police were about to charge Talb who had, since 1989, been serving time in a Swedish jail for a series of bomb attacks in Sweden and Denmark.

In March 1989, however, Margaret Thatcher called President GWH Bush to discuss the case. The two leaders agreed it was important to "cool it" on the Iranian angle, since they were in no position to punish the Tehran regime, which had just survived the eight-year war with US/UK-sponsored Iraq.

Don’t limit Lockerbie probe to BP claims, campaigners urge US senators

[This is the headline over an article on the CNS News website by international editor Patrick Goodenough. It reads in part:]

If the US Senate wants to get to the bottom of the early release of the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing, it should look beyond allegations of links to an oil deal and ask whether the prisoner was sent home to preempt an appeal that could have overturned the trial verdict, campaigners said Wednesday.

Twenty-two years after Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, close observers of the drawn-out affair have many unanswered questions about the attack, the subsequent trial and conviction in 2001 of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee plans a hearing next Thursday on the “circumstances surrounding” Megrahi’s release last August. The Libyan was serving a life sentence in a Scottish prison for murdering 270 people, but after contracting terminal cancer was freed “on compassionate grounds,” with Scottish officials citing medical advice that he likely had three months to live.

Megrahi remains alive almost a year later, and a group of US Senators have called for answers, focused particularly on suspicions that British officials did a deal to safeguard a lucrative BP oil exploration contract in Libya.

BP acknowledges having lobbied the British government during negotiations between London and Tripoli in 2007 over a “prisoner transfer agreement” (PTA), concerned that delays in finalizing the deal could jeopardize its contract.

Scotland’s devolved government last summer rejected a Libyan request to send Megrahi home under the PTA (which would have seen him serve out his sentence in a Libyan jail) but then in late August released him on compassionate grounds, “to return to Libya to die.”

Two men who have long campaigned for the truth – the father of one of the victims, and a UN-nominated international observer at the 84-day Lockerbie trial – called Wednesday for any new inquiry to dig deep.

Jim Swire, whose daughter died on Flight 103, wrote a letter to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Sen John Kerry. Hans Kochler, the Austrian academic who observed the 84-day trial, issued a statement.

Both men are among those who believe justice was not done in the trial.

In his letter, Swire said it would be wise if the inquiry looked beyond Megrahi’s release, and examined whether he should have been convicted in the first place.

Why was the appeal dropped?

Something that has puzzled Swire, Kochler and many others was Megrahi’s abrupt decision just days before his release to abandon a second appeal against his conviction and sentence. (A first appeal failed in 2002).

The Libyan had throughout insisted he was not guilty and had for years been pushing for a second appeal. In 2007, the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which had been investigating the case since 2003, concluded that there “may have been a miscarriage of justice” and recommended that he be allowed to go ahead with the appeal.

After lengthy procedural delays, the appeal process finally got underway in mid-2009 and the case was set down for a substantive court session starting November 2.

On Aug 12, however, Megrahi applied to the High Court in Edinburgh to drop his appeal, and on Aug 18 the court agreed. Two days later he was freed and flew home.

Legal experts have pointed out that dropping the legal case was not a prerequisite for being released on compassionate grounds (although it would have been a requirement for a transfer under the PTA.)

“Was pressure put upon him to do so?” Swire asked in his letter to Kerry. “Maybe a proper inquiry would answer that question too.”

Hans Koechler, who served as a UN-nominated international observer at the Lockerbie trial.

Koechler in his statement also raised questions about Megrahi’s decision to drop the appeal he had been fighting for for so long. (...)

At the time of Megrahi’s application to drop the appeal Christine Grahame, a Scottish lawmaker whose electoral region includes Lockerbie and who had met with the convict in prison, also voiced doubts.

“I know from the lengthy discussions I had with him that he was desperate to clear his name, so I believe that the decision is not entirely his own,” she said.

The Scottish government at the time denied that any pressure had been placed on Megrahi to drop his appeal.

Questions

The prosecution case was that Megrahi, who was based in Malta, planted the bomb in a suitcase there which was loaded onto a flight to Frankfurt. There it was transferred as unaccompanied baggage to a feeder flight for Pan Am 103, the London Heathrow to New York flight.

Swire and others believe that Megrahi’s appeal, had it gone ahead, would have heard evidence calling into question the testimony of a key prosecution witness, Maltese store owner Tony Gauci, who supposedly sold Megrahi clothing that was packed in the suitcase containing the bomb. In its review of the case, the SCCRC questioned the reliability of Gauci’s evidence.

Also unclear is the significance, if any, of an unusual break-in at a baggage area at Heathrow Airport used by Pan Am 18 hours before the Lockerbie bomb exploded.

A security guard’s report to anti-terror police about the break-in was not presented during the trial but in a later sworn affidavit he said it could have been possible for an unauthorized person to have obtained tags for a particular flight and then placed a tagged bag at a baggage collection point.

News of the Heathrow break-in contributed to conjecture that the bombers may have introduced the device in London, rather than Malta, thus calling into question the Megrahi link altogether.

Koechler said the families of the Lockerbie victims deserve to know the truth, and any alleged BP role in Megrahi’s release was only one of many aspects that need investigating. (...)

Libyan ‘admission’

Libya’s agreement in 1999 to surrender for trial Megrahi and a co-accused – later acquitted – and its payment of compensation to families of the Pan Am victims resulted in a lifting of U.N. sanctions and improving relations with Western governments.

Key to the ending of sanctions was a letter Libya sent to the UN Security Council in August 2003, widely interpreted as Libya’s admission of responsibility for the bombing.

What the letter actually said was that Libya “has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103, and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.”

In 2004 Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem caused a stir when he told the BBC that Libya had only agreed to the admission and compensation to “buy peace.”

“After the sanctions and after the problems we faced because of the sanctions, the loss of money, we thought it was easier for us to buy peace and this is why we agreed on compensation,” he said.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi later rebutted the remarks but his son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi – who played a key role in Libya’s return to diplomatic respectability – made similar comments four years later.

“Yes, we wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees, or people,” he told the BBC. “But it doesn’t mean that we did it in fact.”

“I admit that we played with words – we had to,” he said. “What can you do? Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions.”

Letter from First Minister to Senator Kerry

[What follows is the text of a letter sent today by the First Minister, Alex Salmond, to the chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, Senator John Kerry.]

Dear Senator Kerry

I am writing to you about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's recent interest in the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. This letter sets out the Scottish Government's position on the key issues that have been raised in recent days. I trust it will assist your Committee's consideration of this matter.

I want first of all to restate the revulsion of the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland at the bombing of Flight Pan Am 103 and to acknowledge the terrible pain and suffering inflicted on the victims and the relatives of all those who died in the Lockerbie atrocity. Whatever different views we have about the release of Al-Megrahi, I am sure we stand together on that.

My understanding is that the recent interest from the Committee and from other Senators stems mainly from concerns over any role played by BP in Al-Megrahi's release. I can say unequivocally that the Scottish Government has never, at any point, received any representations from BP in relation to Al-Megrahi. That is to say we had no submissions or lobbying of any kind from BP, either oral or written, and, to my knowledge, the subject of Al-Megrahi was never raised by any BP representative to any Scottish Government Minister. That includes the Justice Minister to whom it fell to make the decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release on a quasi-judicial basis.

Where BP has admitted that it played a role is in encouraging the UK Government to conclude a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with the Libyan Government. I must make clear that the Scottish Government strongly opposed the PTA and the memorandum that led to it was agreed without our knowledge and against our wishes. Indeed it was the Scottish Government which first drew attention to these negotiations involving former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Libyan counterparts as soon as we learned of them in 2007. By definition, a PTA with Libya concerned Al-Megrahi since he was the only Libyan national in Scottish custody. This point was underlined when the UK Government failed to exclude Al-Megrahi from the face of the agreement.

As was highlighted last year, the Scottish Government rejected the application for transfer of Al-Megrahi under the PTA specifically on the basis that the US Government and families of victims in the United States had been led to believe that such a prisoner transfer would not be possible for anyone convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. If your Committee is concerned about BP's role or the PTA then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your enquiries. There is nothing the Scottish Government can add to this since we have had no contact with BP at any point in the process of considering Al-Megrahi's position.

The position of the then UK Government in this matter was best expressed by the former Foreign Secretary Mr Milliband in his statement to the House of Commons on 12 October 2009 when he said "The UK Government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision. Although the decision was not one for the UK Government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation would be damaged. .. if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison."

The decision of the Scottish Government to release Al-Megrahi was made on the basis of an application for compassionate release. This is a separate and long-standing process within the Scottish justice system under which a total of 39 prisoners - including Al-Megrahi have been released since the present provisions were introduced in 1993. During that period, all applications meeting the required criteria and which had support from the Scottish Prison Service, doctors and social work staff, and, in appropriate cases, the Parole Board for Scotland, were granted. I can assure you that consideration of Al-Megrahi's application followed the due process of Scots Law at all stages and that the decision was made in good faith and on the basis of the appropriate criteria.

In order to demonstrate that due process was followed, we published all the key documents related to the decision where permission for publication was given. The only significant documents that we have not published are US Government representations and some correspondence from the UK Government, where permission was declined. The Scottish Government is, and has always been, willing to publish these remaining documents if the US and UK Governments are willing to give permission for that to be done.

There has been some questioning of the medical advice that was used to inform the decision on compassionate release. That advice was compiled by Dr Andrew Fraser, the Director of Health and Care in the Scottish Prison Service, drawing on medical expertise provided by two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and the primary care physician. All of these specialists are employed by the National Health Service in Scotland. I do not believe there is any value in questioning the professional integrity of Dr Fraser, who made clinical judgements in good faith and who had no interest in giving anything other than the most professional standard of advice he could offer. There is no evidence that any of the doctors were placed under any outside influence whatsoever and what they provided was an objective view of Al-Megrahi's condition at that time.

Quite separately, the Libyan Government commissioned and paid for advice from other leading cancer specialists. These reports commissioned by the Libyan Government played no part in the decision on compassionate release. Indeed, the report most widely quoted, compiled by Professor Sikora, was not received by the Scottish Government until four days after the medical advice on compassionate release had been presented to the Scottish Justice Minister. I can therefore reassure you and your Committee that the medical evidence which informed the decision to release Al-Megrahi took no account of any assessments paid for by the Libyan Government.

I know that some of your colleagues have questioned how Al-Megrahi can still be alive 11 months after release, when the decision was based on medical advice that 3 months was a reasonable prognosis for his life expectancy. While he has lived for longer than the prognosis suggested, there was a recognition at the time that he could die sooner or live longer. This was made clear in the Scottish Government's public statements, and was an acknowledgement that prognosis in cancer cases is subject to several variables that could affect the estimate of life expectancy. The fact remains, however, that Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer.

I am aware of comments from Secretary of State Clinton to the effect that she would encourage the UK Government and Scottish Government to review how the decisions were reached. I would note that the Scottish Government's actions have already been subject to scrutiny by Committees of both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Their reports and our responses are a matter of public record. There is nothing within them to challenge the Scottish Government's position that the decision was made in good faith and in line with due process. However we will gladly co-operate with the UK Cabinet Secretary in reviewing the publication of any further documents germane to the case.

On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government do not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity. The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature. As was indicated last year, the Scottish Government would be happy to co-operate fully with such an inquiry. I would add that the case remains open with regard to others who may have had an involvement, with Mr Al-Megrahi, in the Lockerbie atrocity. Scottish and US authorities continue to work together in this area.

I am aware that the US Government and many relatives of those who died, particularly in the US, profoundly disagree with the Scottish Government's decision to release Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. I do not expect anything I say will change that but I do think it is important to put on record the background to that decision and reassure you that it was made with integrity and following a clear legal process. I hope that my doing so will assist the Committee.

I am copying this letter to Senators Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer and to Secretary of State Clinton. I am also passing a copy to the US Consulate in Edinburgh.

Alex Salmond

The truth is lost

[The following are excerpts from a powerful article on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm by the editor, Steven Raeburn. It should be compulsory reading for every journalist who has covered, and every politician who has pontificated on, the Lockerbie saga.]

No one in Edinburgh, Washington, London or Libya wants to talk about the embarrassment to Scots law and affront to international justice that was the Lockerbie trial. No one wants to talk about the fabricated material that was introduced as evidence, or the flaws in the Crown case or the bribery of key witnesses. No one wants to talk about the daily briefings imposed upon the bereaved families to try and persuade them all was well when the show trial had collapsed under the weight of its own inadequacy. Or how the UK relatives wouldn’t listen to them any more. No one wants to talk about the touted defence case that was quietly and almost totally dropped without comment on the imbalance. No one wants to talk about the witnesses whose testimony wasn’t heard, and those witnesses who were heard, but whose testimony was a tissue of lies and inconsistency paid for by US intelligence. No one wants to talk about the prevarications of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, whose report into the Megrahi conviction -at least, those parts of it released- went to great lengths to dismiss the work of investigative journalists over the 19 preceding years, before reluctantly, grudgingly, yet narrowly choking on its acceptance that a miscarriage of justice had in all probability taken place. No one wants to talk about the closed courts, the security vetted, court appointed defenders, the intelligence documentation that is protected by PII, the pressure applied to ensure Megrahi dropped his appeal, the refusal to hold a public inquiry despite the obvious need, the destroyed police notebooks, the inconsistent testimony, the limitations and narrowness of the appeal process, the clear and evident lack of guilt of the man convicted of doing something even the court agreed could not be established with any logic that fit the evidence, far less proven.

No. Instead, our Prime Minister, our First Minister, our Foreign Secretary, a gaggle of US Senators and their Foreign Secretary want to talk about why a bomber was released. The circumstances of how a bomber was released. Who made the decision to release a bomber. Whether BP had anything to do with a bomber’s release. Why a bomber hasn’t died yet. Whether a bomber should be returned to a Scottish jail. Bomber, bomber, bomber. Are you getting it?

On 21 December 1988 a plane was destroyed above Lockerbie. The only evidence of a bomb that was introduced turned out to have been fabricated, and any physicist who knows his semtex -together with any engineer who knows his Boeing 747- will tell you that the tale told by the prosecution was not only incredible, but impossible.

That fantasy tale was spun by US intelligence, sold to a docile media, and kept from our own Crown Office until the trial was well underway, past the point of no return, as it were. By the time the Crown were told how hollow the star witness’s testimony was, and how empty the prosecution case was, the circus was already into its third act.

Our Crown Office were assured by our allies that they had a solid case, and they believed them and felt privileged to have the opportunity to prosecute it before the eyes of the world. They can be forgiven for going into this like babes in the wood, tripping over themselves to be part of the golden ticket. However, they cannot be forgiven for perpetuating the fiction over later years, in the light of its exposure, collapse and discredit, which they do even to this day. (...)

An international petition for a wide ranging inquiry is before the UN, yet none of the compromised governments are willing to sponsor it. They are however very willing to talk with some coordination and vigour about the release of a bomber, but not about what happened or how he came to be incarcerated, the questions which our judicial process had not yet answered before it was halted.

Bomber, bomber, bomber. And throw in some BP, too. That is the agenda, so that is what we read about. Even if you have no sympathy for BP, to see them used as a whipping boy by the very nation whose culpability in creating and sustaining this lengthy farce is an offence to the truth, and a barely credible distraction.

Our allies sold us a lie and sold us out. Our government bought into it then, and our governments shore up that error to this day. It is our justice system and international reputation that is wrecked as a result. And the truth is lost.

But no one wants to talk about that, do they? The terms of the engagement are fully under control. Did someone say bomber?

The clamour for a FULL inquiry

Those who have so far this week called for a full, independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case -- and not merely an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation -- include Pamela Dix, Jim Swire, Dr Hans Koechler, Tam Dalyell and Christine Grahame MSP.

In support of this call, I repeat what I wrote in February 2010 in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.

Despite willingness expressed by both the Scottish and UK Governments to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, neither has initiated one, and each appear to expect the other to do so. Professor Robert Black QC says the complicated comedy of manners and faux fidelity hides the knowledge of both that the actings of their legal advisers are fatally compromised.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal because he thought it would maximise his chances of being allowed home to Libya to die (by keeping open the possibility of prisoner transfer). In fact, what Kenny MacAskill did was to release him on compassionate grounds, a procedure which, unlike prisoner transfer, does not require that there be no live legal proceedings. But Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that this was the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would jump.

The abandonment of the appeal did not signify that he now accepted the justness of his conviction. Far from it. In the statement released on his departure he said: “I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair. In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description. I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable. To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.”

So the concerns about the conviction felt by many, including the SCCRC, remain. Until those concerns are officially addressed a deep shadow will hover over the Scottish criminal justice system, both domestically and internationally. It is blindingly obvious that the shadow can now best be removed by the establishment of an independent inquiry into the whole circumstances of the Lockerbie disaster.

The Scottish Government says that it favours an inquiry, but that it should be set up by the UK Government. The UK Government says that since all the legal proceedings relating to Lockerbie were under Scottish jurisdiction, any inquiry must be a matter for the Scottish Government. It is difficult to disagree with the following passage from an editorial in The Herald on 25 October 2009: “Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because 'that’s the way our system works', while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened 'by those with required powers'. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.”

If neither government is opposed to an inquiry, but only at odds about who should convene it, why has the problem not been resolved (as it was in relation to Stockline) by setting up a joint inquiry under section 32 of the Inquiries Act 2005? Could the answer be the legal advice that both governments are receiving?

If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the Scottish Government, from whom would the Scottish Ministers seek advice on the legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal legal adviser, the Lord Advocate. If such an inquiry were to be set up, one of the issues at the forefront of its terms of reference would have to be the conduct of the prosecution before, during and after the Lockerbie trial. Who is the head of the Scottish prosecution system? The Lord Advocate, of course.

If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the UK Government, from whom would UK Ministers seek advice on the Scottish legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal Scottish legal adviser, the Advocate General for Scotland. Who was it who in the recent appeal fought valiantly and successfully to keep documents out of the hands of Megrahi’s legal team? The Advocate General for Scotland, of course.

Just the teensiest suspicion of a conflict of interest here, perhaps?

SNP call for release of UK Lockerbie files

[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish National Party.]

The challenge from SNP MSP and Lockerbie campaigner Christine Grahame comes after The Guardian reported that far from releasing all documents Mr Cameron would consult former Labour ministers first.

Ms Grahame, who is to write to Mr Cameron and the former Labour ministers on this matter said:

"David Cameron must not let Labour ministers protect their dirty little secrets. Cameron must also explain why he was totally silent when the PTA negotiations became public knowledge in June 2007 – thanks to the First Minister – and why the Tories as the Official Opposition at Westminster never spoke up against it. Were the Tories along with the then government lobbied by BP?

"Now is time for the UK Government to release all the information on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the deal in the desert and the negotiations between Tony Blair’s Government and Colonel Gaddafi’s regime.

"The Scottish Government has published all the relevant material it holds – where permission was given where that was required – and has been clear throughout that it rejected Tony Blair’s dodgy deal in the desert.

"Indeed, the US government refused publication of communications with the Scottish Government, and the UK government also held some material back. The US and UK must agree that all this material should be published.

"I have always believed that the UK Government had its own objectives when it came to Libya and was utterly hypocritical over Mr Megrahi’s release.

"David Miliband made clear last year that the UK Government wanted Megrahi released to help business interests. That tainted approach was rejected by the Scottish Government. It is only right that we know who Mr Miliband had been talking to and whose interests he favoured."

Ms Grahame intends to contact the Obama administration urging them to release any documents they may have on correspondence with either the UK, Scottish or Libyan Governments on Mr Megrahi after the US refused to allow the Scottish Government to release its correspondence.

"The US Government refused to allow the Scottish Government to release their correspondence.

"With Labour and Tory politicians and US senators making unsubstantiated and ill informed accusations the only way to bring clarity to families of victims on both sides of the Atlantic and to all those who want an inquiry would be for all the papers to be released in full."

[Another related SNP press release can be read here.]

"Compassionate release" of Lockerbie convict: investigation must be comprehensive and independent

In a statement issued today, Dr Hans Köchler, UN-nominated international observer at the Lockerbie Trial, expressed his support for the call by a group of United States Senators for an inquiry into the release by the Scottish government of the only person convicted in connection with the midair explosion of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie (Scotland) on 21 December 1988.

However, for an investigation to be meaningful, it must be independent of political interference and should deal with all aspects of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release, not only with the alleged role of British Petroleum (BP); the ongoing controversy over BP's responsibility for the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the United States must not unduly interfere with the search for the truth in an entirely different matter, Dr Köchler stated.

An investigation should also address the question why Scotland's Cabinet Secretary for Justice made the unprecedented step to visit the Lockerbie convict in Scotland's Greenock prison and what exactly he discussed with him in private.

It is to be recalled that Mr al-Megrahi withdrew his appeal on 12 August 2009, a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary (5 August), and, again a few days later (20 August), he was repatriated to Libya. It is also to be recalled that, under Scots law, "compassionate release" does not require the termination of trial or appeal proceedings. Only a release under the provisions of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya (that was initiated by then Prime Minister Tony Blair) would have required the termination of proceedings. The Scottish Justice Secretary deliberately chose not to make use of this option.

The only "visit" that was required in the process of handling Mr al-Megrahi's application for compassionate release would have been one by competent and independent medical experts, since it is essentially a medical assessment (concerning a convict's life expectancy) that determines compassionate release under Scots law.

It is further to be recalled that, on 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stated that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and referred Mr al-Megrahi's case back to the appeal court. After much delay, the hearings of the second appeal had finally begun in 2009, only to be abruptly terminated by Mr al-Megrahi's (legally unnecessary) withdrawal of his application.

A meaningful investigation should find out the real motives behind the decision of the Scottish Justice Secretary. In view of the unprecedented private meeting between a Secretary for Justice and a person convicted of mass murder (a conviction which, according to his own statements, Scotland's Justice Secretary does not question in any way), it is entirely appropriate to ask whether the decisive motive might have been the termination of proceedings so that the role of the Scottish, UK and US administrations in the handling of the Lockerbie case would never be fully scrutinized in a court of law. In view of the British Foreign Secretary's decision, in February 2008, to withhold supposedly secret evidence from the Defence, claiming "Public Interest Immunity" (PII), questions as to considerations of raison d'état (of the United Kingdom and, possibly, the United States) are not far-fetched.

The families of the victims deserve better; and the rule of law requires more. The full truth of the Lockerbie tragedy must be known; the possible role of BP in the release of the only person convicted is only one of many aspects that would have to be investigated, Dr Köchler concluded.

[A report on the BBC News website of an interview with Dr Koechler can be read here.]

Lockerbie truth must be known

[This is the headline over an article by Pamela Dix on the Comment is free section of The Guardian website. It reads as follows:]

The BP issue is another example of the way the truth has been hidden over Lockerbie. We need a full inquiry into the atrocity

Yet again Lockerbie has hit the headlines. The latest twist is the role BP might have had in the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, leading, ironically, to a call for an inquiry into the circumstances of his release. This while the families' calls for an inquiry into the atrocity itself are denied.

The families have faced years of denials and obfuscation, as we have painstakingly sought answers to the many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. The BP issue is just another element in the shameful way in which the truth behind Britain's biggest mass murder has been hidden.

Gordon Brown said that there was "no deal on oil" for Megrahi's release. Yet the then foreign secretary, David Miliband, said in the House of Commons in October 2009: "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British business and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than in Libya."

In its statement, BP was careful to say that it had made no mention of Megrahi while discussing the need to conclude the agreement on prisoner transfer between Libya and the UK. BP must think we were born yesterday: what other Libyan was supposedly holding back progress on oil drilling deals with Libya?

Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill assures the world that representations made to him, for and against Megrahi's release, played no part in his decision, which he apparently made on the basis of medical and legal evidence. Would they really have released a mass murderer on compassionate grounds if they truly believed he was guilty?

Our new prime minister, David Cameron, takes the view that Megrahi "should have died in jail". Perhaps he thinks in agreeing with the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton that it shouldn't have happened, that it was just a bad decision by the Scottish government, it will make the problem go away. He is yet to get to grips with the complexity of Lockerbie – that it is not a simple case of a guilty man, a few US senators causing trouble, and business as usual for the oil industry.

Cameron's statement takes no account of the fact that although he was convicted, Megrahi continues to protest his innocence. With the abandonment of his appeal last year went all our hopes and expectations that finally we would get to the bottom of the case against him. Dismay does not begin to convey the feelings I had then and now as speculation and a drip feed of "information" about Lockerbie fill the vacuum that a full inquiry should fill.

Where does the public interest truly lie: in getting to the bottom of the worst terrorist crime this country has ever known, or in securing the national economic interest? Are these two things incompatible?

Cameron should indeed explain the UK government position to President Barack Obama and others in the United States. Over 180 Americans died in the bombing. It is equally right that he should stand by his own recent statement to the House of Commons on the Bloody Sunday inquiry – "It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness." With this in mind, I can only hope that he will respect the maxim of UK Families Flight 103, that "the truth must be known".

UK Families Flight 103 will soon find out whether the letter we sent today to Cameron, reiterating our call for a full independent inquiry, will be heeded.

Perhaps some readers will think I am like a stuck record – still calling for answers, for justice, for the truth. However slim the prospects may be, that maxim is at the forefront of my mind today, along with our second, "their spirit lives on".

[Another Comment is free contribution by Ewan Crawford entitled "Megrahi release was compassionate, not political" can be read here.]

Lockerbie bomber's release has strengthened ties with UK, says Libya

[This is the headline over a report published yesterday on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]

Libya's relations with Britain have been flourishing across the board since the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, one of Muammar Gaddafi's senior ministers said today.

Libya was "delighted" at Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's return home from a Scottish prison last August and still insists he is innocent of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103, said Abdel-Fatah Yunis al-Obeidi, the Libyan secretary general for public security. [Note by RB: The person being referred to is not Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who led the Libyan team that had several meetings with Scottish (and UK) government officials in the run-up to Mr Megrahi's repatriation.]

Obeidi, whose rank is that of a cabinet minister, hinted that David Cameron's comment that Megrahi's release had been a "mistake" — fuelling the domestic and international row about the circumstances of the decision — was made under US pressure. In an exclusive interview on a visit to London, Obeidi said he was certain the former intelligence agent was innocent.

"Libya is delighted by his return and has always viewed him as a political hostage and never acknowledged him as a prisoner," he said. "Libya had no connection with the Lockerbie affair. The international community was led to believe that Libya was behind the incident but history will prove the truth. I am convinced that Megrahi was innocent and was a victim of a huge international conspiracy."

Libya agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to families of the victims because of demands from the UN, not because it admitted guilt over the worst act of terrorism in British history. It portrays Megrahi's release as a purely humanitarian issue involving a man suffering from terminal prostate cancer who supposedly had just weeks left to live.

"Megrahi is in the hands of God," said Obeidi. "He was in a Scottish prison. Those who made the three-month prognosis were British doctors. The fact that he is still alive is divine will and has nothing to do with Libya. If you have a direct line to Heaven you can check up there." (...)

"Relations are excellent and getting better every day," he said. "The problem before was the absence of trust. Now we have restored confidence and there is much greater cooperation."

Libyan officials do not normally relish discussing Lockerbie, wishing to draw a line under it after the payment of compensation, the restoration of diplomatic relations with the US and UK and a wider sense that the country has shed its pariah status as western companies, backed by their governments, queue up to do business. But Libya lobbied hard for Megrahi's release — finding a willing partner in the Labour government — and the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity was escorted home personally by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's son and presumed heir. During a recent lecture in London the younger Gaddafi responded monosyllabically to a question about Megrahi, focusing instead on the "new" Libya and opportunities it presented.

Libya does not expect any adverse effect on its booming relations with the UK. "The Libyans won't really care," predicted Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli "It's yesterday's problem. The worry now is Megrahi's state of health. There's no question of him being sent back to Scotland or of Libya having to pay any price. They will see it as Cameron being in the pocket of the Americans."

MacAskill accuses his critics of hypocrisy

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill yesterday accused UK governments both past and present of hypocrisy after high-level condemnation of his decision to allow the man convicted of Lockerbie bombing to return home to die.

MacAskill said he would not apologise for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, despite the fact that he has long outlived the medical opinion that he had only three months to live at the time of his release 11 months ago.

In an interview in yesterday’s Herald, David Milband, the former Foreign Secretary, said the decision to free Megrahi was wrong.

Responding, MacAskill stood by his decision to sanction the return of Megrahi to Tripoli on compassionate grounds, stressing that the Scottish Government was the sole opponent of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between the UK and Libya.

The PTA followed the Deal in the Desert struck between Colonel Gaddafi and Tony Blair, which paved the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s vast oil reserves.

MacAskill said yesterday that Miliband was part of that government and should explain the details of the PTA to US senators, adding that the PTA was opposed by neither David Cameron nor William Hague at the time. He added: “I think there is a great deal of hypocrisy. If they are so opposed [to Megrahi’s release], why didn’t they oppose the PTA? At the end of the day, the only people to oppose the PTA was the Scottish Government. I don’t recall William Hague condemning the PTA.”

BP has admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a PTA with Libya, but denied specifically discussing Megrahi.

MacAskill said: “There are considerable questions that American senators are entitled to ask the UK Government but I can give every body a complete assurance that oil had never been a factor in my decision.

“There was before me an application for compassionate release to allow him to go home. We balance justice with mercy in this country.”

The Justice Secretary said he would be happy to assist US investigators if requested, but added that it was down to David Miliband and his colleagues to set out what they were doing “cavorting with Gaddafi.”

“There are questions about BP and the US Government. They are questions that I can’t answer. They are questions that David Miliband can answer.”

[An opinion piece by Brian Currie in the same newspaper headed "Just what don’t they get about devolution?" reads in part:]

What is it about devolution that Westminster politicians don’t understand?

After 11 years, it should be reasonable to assume even the most small-minded Little Englanders would know Scotland can make big decisions on its own.

But the message hasn’t penetrated some of the more obdurate minds of their Scottish colleagues in the Commons.

Comments by the hitherto unknown backbencher Daniel Kawczynski on the decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing suggest that the Scottish justice system and those in charge of it are somehow answerable to Westminster. Kawczynski was educated at Stirling University but perhaps he doesn’t realise the extent of the Scottish Government’s authority and maybe he is unaware that Scotland has its own judicial system.

But as chair of Westminster’s all-party committee on Libya he should know there have been two inquiries into the decision by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

A Scottish Parliament inquiry and another by Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Select Committee were clear in their conclusions, yet Kawczynski has written to David Cameron asking for Scottish Ministers to be held to account. Since Cameron can’t do this, perhaps he’s just trying to catch the PM’s eye in the hope of promotion.

It seems odd that a man who called for Megrahi to be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip chairs a committee whose aim is to promote and understand the culture, history and politics of Libya and engage in relations between that country’s legislature and the UK’s.

Some leeway, but not much, can be granted to the US Senators holding a hearing into whether there was a link between Megrahi’s release and BP oil deals. But they, too, should be better informed about what devolution means. America is a federal country and different states have different powers, the ultimate being the death penalty.

The Senators should surely grasp the concept of devolved powers and be able to distinguish between Prisoner Transfer Agreements between Westminster and Libya and the compassionate grounds on which the Scottish Government’s Justice Secretary based his decision. (...)

More than 50 US companies are reported to have signed contracts with Libya compared to four from the UK and the smell coming from the States isn’t just oil pollution – it’s the reek of hypocrisy.

It is also faintly nauseating to see the Prime Minister, his Foreign Secretary and Labour leadership favourite David Miliband queue up to blame MacAskill for releasing Megrahi. Would the decision have been different had it been made in Whitehall or would the interests of big business and the economy have resulted in the same outcome?

MacAskill had an enormous decision to make when considering whether to free the man convicted of murdering 270 people and the debate over whether he got it right or wrong remains the focus of controversy. In all the debate it seems to have been forgotten that people suffering from cancer are not given a set date on which to die and MacAskill acted only after considering the medical evidence that Megrahi had around three months to live.

Most importantly, however, the decision was taken in Scotland by a Scottish Government Minister and whether they sit in the US Senate or in the Commons, politicians should respect that because that is devolution in action. In this area Scotland is subservient to no-one.

[A Reuters news agency report contains the following comments from Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond:]

"We had no contact with BP either written or verbal or any lobbying of that kind as far as the process of compassionate release was concerned," Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio 4. (...)

Salmond, who leads the pro-independence Scottish National Party and heads a minority government in Scotland's dissolved assembly, defended the decision to release Megrahi.

"You can only take a decision based on information at the time. It is not unheard of for people released on compassionate grounds to live longer than the estimated three months."

Salmond criticized former Prime Minister Tony Blair, saying he was negotiating on prisoner exchanges with Libya at the same time as discussing business deals in 2007 in what the Scottish leader called a "tainted process."

"I think it was deeply unfortunate that you should negotiate a prisoner transfer agreement on a judicial matter on the same day that you sign an agreement on oil exploration and concessions," Salmond said.

"But that's what the then Prime Minister Tony Blair did in June 2007." Blair visited Libya in late May 2007, a few weeks before he stood down as prime minister to be replaced by party colleague Gordon Brown. (...)

The agreement took effect in April 2009 but the Scottish authorities did not use it when releasing Megrahi, a fact that Salmond said proved there was no conspiracy.

"A lot of people would have wanted the Scottish government to invoke the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. If we had done then the U.S. Senators who are arguing for this conspiracy on economic and oil concessions would have something to go on," Salmond said.

[A similar report on The Scotsman website can be read here.]

Letter from Dr Swire to Senator Kerry

[What follows is the text of a letter sent yesterday by Dr Jim Swire to Senator John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate committee on foreign relations, which has scheduled a hearing into the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. An article based on the letter can be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]

My deeply loved elder daughter Flora aged 23 was among the victims aboard the plane. I think that all affected families, both here and in the US would welcome knowing the whole truth about every aspect of who caused the disaster and why they were not stopped.

I’m sure we are all united in that, though many of those you represent are much more confident in believing in the integrity of the trial process to which Mr Megrahi was subjected than are some of us over here.

So may I welcome you and your band of 4 Senators in your search for aspects of that truth, but this letter proposes reasons why it would be wise to consider the question of why the atrocity was not prevented as well as Megrahi’s guilt or innocence rather than only the reasons for his release.

I do not feel proud of the circumstances that have led me to hope that representatives of the USA rather than my own nation should be searching for the truth on our behalf. Below are some reasons why that is now a hope for us.

A Fatal Accident Inquiry (= inquest) was held in Scotland which found that the disaster had been preventable, and that the aircraft had been under the ‘Host State Protection of the United Kingdom’ at all relevant times. The failure of any UK Prime Minister to date to inquire into this ghastly failure of UK responsibility is enough in itself to justify this letter appealing to you.

We have approached every Prime Minster to seek a full inquiry and been as often rejected. David Cameron has not had time to reply yet, but I think you should know a little of the roles of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in particular.

Mrs Thatcher refused even to meet us (our group is called UK Families-Flight 103) to discuss an inquiry. She decreed that the Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) police, the UK's smallest police force should conduct the criminal investigation, even though she must have known that The Metropolitan police, through their special anti-terrorist branch, had already discovered a break-in at Heathrow airport the night before Lockerbie, which had given the untraced intruder access to the Iran Air facilities there, close to where bags were loaded for Pan Am 103 the next night.

The information concerning the break-in remained unknown to the Megrahi trial it only became known after the verdict had been reached,. when a junior Heathrow security man publicly complained that his evidence to the Metropolitan police early in 1989 had not been heard in the trial. Why did that happen?

In 1993 (two years after the indictment of the Libyans) Mrs Thatcher published a book The Downing Street Years. In it (p 449) she wrote that following the USAF raid on Tripoli/Bengazi in 1986 Gaddafi had been humbled and “the much vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. There was a marked decrease in Libyan terrorism in succeeding years.”

‘Succeeding years’ would include 1988 and therefore the Lockerbie disaster. Why did she write that, though in power when Lockerbie happened?

We also requested Tony Blair to launch a full inquiry. He did meet with us but after a month of ‘asking the relevant people’ told us that ‘they’ did not consider any further inquiry necessary. When he went to see Colonel Gaddafi for the so called ‘Deal in the Desert’, the first we heard of it was through the media.

Scotland’s Criminal Case Review Commission meanwhile had found that the trial might well have been a miscarriage of justice, while the UN’s special observer to the trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna had strongly criticised the trial as biased and the verdict as ‘incomprehensible’. Many jurists agree, and some would voluntarily give evidence before you.

As a result of the SCCRC’s comments Mr Megrahi’s case was referred back to the High Court in Edinburgh. Many believed that re-examination of the evidence would be bound to overturn the verdict.

However a succession of delays ensued, but even so Mr Jack Straw, the Labour government’s Minister of Justice was reduced to overriding the wishes of the House of Commons Select Committee on Human Rights, in order to have the Prisoner Transfer Agreement up and running by the start of the appeal.

Many thought this looked like an attempt to stop the appeal and thus ‘save’ the verdict by sending Mr Megrahi home. It was a unusual and unwelcome breech of custom for a Committee to be overridden in this way.

In the event the Scots did not use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, but compassionate release, an option long enshrined in Scots law, when a prisoner has a short life prognosis (there is no ‘deadline’ of three months by the way) but for some reason Mr Megrahi withdrew his appeal, though this was not required for Compassionate release.

Was pressure put upon him to do so? Maybe a proper inquiry would answer that question too.

You may of course believe that it was pressure from BP which caused the panic, if Libya or BP were claiming that the UK was dragging her feet over her share of the ‘Deal in the Desert’.

Maybe you can find out whether it was that or a desire to 'protect' the verdict which motivated Mr Straw's precipitate actions.

Senator Kerry, I am heartened to hear that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has just undertaken to meet with you after all, according to today’s press. But I do wonder in view of the behaviour of successive UK governments, with all their delays and withholding of information over the past 21 years, and their failure to protect the plane in the first place, whether the Government of the UK is the right entity to hold an inquiry into this atrocity.

Would it be putting the fox in charge of the hencoop?

Previous UK governments have tried to ‘pass the buck’ to Scotland over the release of Megrahi, but there are far greater issues than that here. I do hope that David Cameron will be sufficiently independent of his predecessors to rebut the above fear: we too have just asked for a meeting with him to discuss an inquiry.

I understand that the Scottish authorities have agreed to cooperate with any appropriately empowered inquiry. Would you consider, in view of the multinational complexity of this case, whether a multinational board of respected individuals, a panel of jurists perhaps, should examine all aspects, including the behaviour of our Westminster administrations?

If so they would have to command the respect of the world and be seen to be independent of all those nations directly involved, which includes the USA of course. Such an inquiry would presumably require at least the full cooperation of the present UK administration.

Nelson Mandela said publicly just as the trial court was announced ‘No one country should be complainant prosecutor and judge’. We should not fall into the same trap again.

Please do not allow your determination to investigate this tragedy be thwarted by any one, it will be a tough call, but we relatives have a right to the whole truth.

American influence on Lockerbie trial

[This is the heading over a letter from Marion Woolfson in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]

I was very interested in the letter from Tom Minogue because, like him, I have serious doubts about Lockerbie (19 July)

I am a retired journalist (and former Scotsman columnist) and, although I was born and educated in Edinburgh, I wrote on the Middle East for 30 years.

As Mr Minogue has pointed out, the United Nations-appointed independent observer to the trial at the Scots court in the [Netherlands], Prof Hans Koechler, voiced his serious concerns that senior US Justice Department officials were in the body of the court and appeared to be directing the Crown Office prosecution staff.

This seems to confirm Lord Sutherland's judicial summation, for he pointed out that "there are undoubtedly problems. In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."

It was also revealed by Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West, that before the trial Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon and put up at the Hilton Hotel in Glasgow.

The judges were not told that, on the day of the bombing, there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area.

Tony Gauci was the Maltese shopkeeper who became the chief witness in the case because a suitcase containing goods he stocked was suddenly "found" among the debris and, although as Gauci could not identify some of the clothing in the suitcase nor could he remember the "owner's" appearance it was decided that the clothing had been wrapped round the bomb (surely if that were true, it would have been destroyed) and so the owner of the suitcase was the bomber.

Megrahi had been about to appeal but was unable to because of being released on compassionate grounds. Gauci has apparently gone to Australia, "assisted" by the gift of a million dollars.

I could have understood all the pathetic lies if they had come from an American source, but surely the Scots have more sense than to believe the rubbish that we have heard.