[This is the headline over a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website. It reads in part:]
Senators postponed a hearing on whether British oil giant BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying on Tuesday key witnesses had "stonewalled" the investigation by refusing to appear.
Senator Robert Menendez announced the postponement of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing set for Thursday and said it would be rescheduled "in the near future." (...)
Menendez said the Senate committee had called two Scottish officials, former British Justice Secretary Jack Straw and two BP executives -- including departing chief executive Tony Hayward -- but all had declined to testify.
"It is utterly disappointing and I think pretty outrageous that none of these key witnesses will cooperate with our request to answer questions before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They have stonewalled," Menendez told reporters.
"It is a game of diplomatic tennis that is worthy of Wimbledon but not worthy on behalf of the lives of the families who still have to deal with this terrorist act and the consequences of the lost loved ones."
He said the panel would conduct a longer-term investigation of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, noting the Scottish government did offer to provide answers to further questions.
"We appreciate that and we will take them up on their offer," he said.
[The report on the BBC News website can be read here.
The Herald's report contains the following:]
Dr Jim Swire, who daughter was killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and who has protested the innocence of Megrahi, said: “Kenny MacAskill made himself pretty clear that he used compassionate release in line with Scots law and explained to the Senators that he had nothing further to add.
“I suppose it is quite embarrassing for the Senate if they have no one to testify.”
[The report in The Independent includes the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash, said today that the US senators were looking at links between BP's commercial interest in Libya and the return of Megrahi.
"That's a question that if anyone from Britain could address, it would be people from Westminster," Dr Swire told BBC Radio Scotland.
"People have forgotten that there is no real link between his release and the so-called 'deal in the desert', because Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond didn't want to touch the prisoner transfer agreement which was set up in the deal in the desert."
Megrahi was eventually freed under compassionate release after medical evidence indicated the bomber had three months to live.
Dr Swire believes that Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
"Are we not interested that the man who has been freed by Kenny MacAskill might, in fact, not be the man who was involved in causing the tragedy?" he said.
"That seems to me over-ridingly a more important question than the question of the minutiae of why he was freed.
"I can understand why they major in on those aspects of it, but I do think it's relatively peripheral."
[The Newsnet Scotland report on the issue can be read here. Newsnet Scotland's coverage of the whole saga of the US Senate circus has been exemplary.]
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Senate interested in trade group letter urging Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an article on the US Politico website. It reads in part:]
Senate aides looking into the release of Abdulbaset Al-Megrahi are focusing on a letter from the chairman of a British Libyan trade group that includes British Petroleum warning that not releasing him from a Scottish prison before his death would cause serious harm to UK-Libyan relations and for its business members.
The letter was written to the Scottish justice secretary in July, 2009 by Lord David Trefgarne, a peer in the British House of Lords and chairman of the trade group, the Libyan British Business Council. (...)
BP has said that it never lobbied either the UK or Scottish government for Megrahi’s release.
BP told Politico Tuesday it knew nothing about the letter until it appeared in the press.
Among the LBBC's members, according to its website, are BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, HSBC, Barclays Bank, the British Arab Commercial Bank, DLA Piper UK LLP, KPMG, and the Wood Group Engineering International.
[The article completely fails to mention Kenny MacAskill's reply to Lord Trefgarne, which contains the sentence "I have said quite clearly that my decision will be one based on judicial grounds alone and that economic and political considerations have no place in the process."
Is what we are now hearing from the USA the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
Senate aides looking into the release of Abdulbaset Al-Megrahi are focusing on a letter from the chairman of a British Libyan trade group that includes British Petroleum warning that not releasing him from a Scottish prison before his death would cause serious harm to UK-Libyan relations and for its business members.
The letter was written to the Scottish justice secretary in July, 2009 by Lord David Trefgarne, a peer in the British House of Lords and chairman of the trade group, the Libyan British Business Council. (...)
BP has said that it never lobbied either the UK or Scottish government for Megrahi’s release.
BP told Politico Tuesday it knew nothing about the letter until it appeared in the press.
Among the LBBC's members, according to its website, are BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, HSBC, Barclays Bank, the British Arab Commercial Bank, DLA Piper UK LLP, KPMG, and the Wood Group Engineering International.
[The article completely fails to mention Kenny MacAskill's reply to Lord Trefgarne, which contains the sentence "I have said quite clearly that my decision will be one based on judicial grounds alone and that economic and political considerations have no place in the process."
Is what we are now hearing from the USA the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
BP says Hayward won't testify at hearing
BP has said that outgoing chief executive Tony Hayward will not testify at a US Senate hearing examining whether the British oil giant influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, the office of Senator Robert Menendez said on Tuesday. (...)
BP has offered to send another representative to testify at Thursday's hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be chaired by Menendez, an aide to the senator told Reuters, without giving the BP official's name.
[From a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website.
Perhaps Sen Menendez might learn some lessons or pick up some hints from "What if you threw a party and no-one came?"]
BP has offered to send another representative to testify at Thursday's hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be chaired by Menendez, an aide to the senator told Reuters, without giving the BP official's name.
[From a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website.
Perhaps Sen Menendez might learn some lessons or pick up some hints from "What if you threw a party and no-one came?"]
Genuine respect for the truth must be at the centre of any system of justice
[This is the heading over a letter from Mrs Jo Greenhorn in today's edition of The Herald. It reads:]
Chris Parton suggests we should put the whole Megrahi affair down to experience and move on (Letters, Monday July 26). I cannot agree. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release is one thing, the truth about Lockerbie is quite another. Recent events, involving the US, have very much backfired on the Americans as newspapers, including The Herald, are calling for a full investigation into Lockerbie, not just Megrahi’s release. I hope such calls grow louder by the day until those who stand in the way of an independent investigation – and they are mainly politicians – are defeated.
I have lately listened to certain politicians, including the current Prime Minister, speak about “justice” and found myself wondering where their particular definition of that word comes from. It is certainly from no dictionary. Those who speak about justice with phoney passion, while at the same time doing all in their power to ensure there is no role for the truth in proceedings, are hypocrites. They insult all of us who truly do believe in justice and who believe, with a genuine passion, that if respect for the truth isn’t at the centre of any justice system then that system is not entitled to use the word justice in its title.
Mr Parton doubts the truth can be uncovered anyway. What we certainly do know is that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission cited six separate grounds to suggest the man convicted for the crime committed over Lockerbie was possibly not the person responsible. I would not apply the “hindsight” or the “spilt milk” approach to such a revelation. My preferred route would be the Court of Appeal, which is where Megrahi’s journey should have taken him ultimately had any sort of justice prevailed.
[The other four letters on the topic are also worth reading.]
Chris Parton suggests we should put the whole Megrahi affair down to experience and move on (Letters, Monday July 26). I cannot agree. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release is one thing, the truth about Lockerbie is quite another. Recent events, involving the US, have very much backfired on the Americans as newspapers, including The Herald, are calling for a full investigation into Lockerbie, not just Megrahi’s release. I hope such calls grow louder by the day until those who stand in the way of an independent investigation – and they are mainly politicians – are defeated.
I have lately listened to certain politicians, including the current Prime Minister, speak about “justice” and found myself wondering where their particular definition of that word comes from. It is certainly from no dictionary. Those who speak about justice with phoney passion, while at the same time doing all in their power to ensure there is no role for the truth in proceedings, are hypocrites. They insult all of us who truly do believe in justice and who believe, with a genuine passion, that if respect for the truth isn’t at the centre of any justice system then that system is not entitled to use the word justice in its title.
Mr Parton doubts the truth can be uncovered anyway. What we certainly do know is that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission cited six separate grounds to suggest the man convicted for the crime committed over Lockerbie was possibly not the person responsible. I would not apply the “hindsight” or the “spilt milk” approach to such a revelation. My preferred route would be the Court of Appeal, which is where Megrahi’s journey should have taken him ultimately had any sort of justice prevailed.
[The other four letters on the topic are also worth reading.]
US declines to allow release of note of MacAskill-Holder phone call
The Obama administration has no plans to release any further correspondence with Scotland relating to the release of the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing.
“Nothing more needs to be released,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told CNSNews on Monday, after the department made public the text of a letter sent to Scottish ministers eight days before Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was freed and flown home to Libya.
Earlier, the Scottish government said there were two documents relating to last year’s correspondence between Scottish and US officials on Megrahi, which the US government had withheld permission for Edinburgh to release. (...)
The second document cited by Scotland was described as “our note of the conversation” between Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder. The two apparently spoke by telephone on June 26, 2009.
Ahead of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday, CNSNews asked Crowley whether that final, still-unreleased document would now be made available.
Crowley said there were multiple phone conversations “over a number of months” with Scottish officials relating to Megrahi, involving Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials.
He questioned how the US would be in a position to verify the authenticity of a Scottish description of a single conversation. “How can we agree on a Scottish account of a phone conversation between leaders?”
Crowley said that all phone conversations on the matter were consistent with the position laid out in the LeBaron letter – “that Megrahi should never leave Scotland.”
[The above are excerpts from a report just published on the CNS News website.]
“Nothing more needs to be released,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told CNSNews on Monday, after the department made public the text of a letter sent to Scottish ministers eight days before Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was freed and flown home to Libya.
Earlier, the Scottish government said there were two documents relating to last year’s correspondence between Scottish and US officials on Megrahi, which the US government had withheld permission for Edinburgh to release. (...)
The second document cited by Scotland was described as “our note of the conversation” between Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder. The two apparently spoke by telephone on June 26, 2009.
Ahead of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday, CNSNews asked Crowley whether that final, still-unreleased document would now be made available.
Crowley said there were multiple phone conversations “over a number of months” with Scottish officials relating to Megrahi, involving Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials.
He questioned how the US would be in a position to verify the authenticity of a Scottish description of a single conversation. “How can we agree on a Scottish account of a phone conversation between leaders?”
Crowley said that all phone conversations on the matter were consistent with the position laid out in the LeBaron letter – “that Megrahi should never leave Scotland.”
[The above are excerpts from a report just published on the CNS News website.]
The frame-up of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi
This is the heading over an article on the US website Veterans Today. It is by Alexander Cockburn and incorporates the work on Lockerbie done by his brother, Andrew. I draw attention to it, not simply for its content which is well-known to those who have taken the trouble to follow the Lockerbie saga, but because of the website that has published it. Normally in the United States the only places that will even think of publishing anything other than strict Lockerbie orthodoxy, US-style, are left-wing, radical, pinko, liberal, weirdo, counterculture sites. Veterans Today does not fall into this category.
US politics struts the stage over Lockerbie bomber row
[This is the headline over an article by journalist, commentator and clergyman Ron Ferguson in today's edition of The Press and Journal a daily newspaper circulating mainly in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Government is quite right to turn down the invitation from Washington to appear before the US Senate. Why on earth should Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill accept a summons to cross the Atlantic and be interrogated by senators who are posturing before their own electorates?
Let's be clear: this furore is more about domestic politics in the US than it is about an international incident. Senators who are nervous about their prospects at forthcoming elections are trying to gain political kudos by grandstanding in front of the TV cameras.
“Thanks, but no thanks," is the correct response from the Scottish Government. Scotland may be a small country, but our elected representatives should not roll over just because America snaps its fingers. (...)
What about the fact that al Megrahi is still alive? Kenny MacAskill could deal only with the expert medical information he was given. He is not a medical man. He depended on the reports of the experts.
As any doctor knows, predicting how long someone with a terminal illness will last is far from being an exact science. Various factors can come into play, such as the morale of the person suffering the illness.
Al Megrahi’s return to his family may well have had a positive effect on his inner wellbeing. What no one disputes is that al Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer.
I applaud First Minister Alex Salmond's statement that he will not let the US “bully” Scotland. He is right to point out that American anger at the huge BP oil spill has fuelled the attacks on his government by politicians from across the Atlantic.
“This is all about BP,” he said. “We don’t object to people asking us questions, but the point about going to the Senate hearing is quite clear. Serving ministers are responsible to their parliaments and their people. I am responsible to the people and parliament of Scotland – not, with great respect, to the American senators.
“No American senator or government official would ever turn to any other parliament’s committee to be held responsible. No American came to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, for example.”
Mr Salmond has written to Senator John Kerry, who will chair the US Senate committee, laying out the Scottish Government’s position on the matter. He added: “John Kerry described the letter of evidence that I sent as thoughtful and thorough and asked if it could be read on to the record of the committee, and I said yes.
“That tells everything that we have got to say on the issue. They are inquiring into BP’s influence, as they see it, in securing the release of al Megrahi. BP had no influence over the Scottish Government and there was no contact between BP and the Scottish Government – formal or informal – in this entire process. Fact.”
We could do with an inquiry into the whole Pan Am case, but it should be an independent inquiry, not a piece of political theatre designed to save skins in Washington.
The Scottish Government is quite right to turn down the invitation from Washington to appear before the US Senate. Why on earth should Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill accept a summons to cross the Atlantic and be interrogated by senators who are posturing before their own electorates?
Let's be clear: this furore is more about domestic politics in the US than it is about an international incident. Senators who are nervous about their prospects at forthcoming elections are trying to gain political kudos by grandstanding in front of the TV cameras.
“Thanks, but no thanks," is the correct response from the Scottish Government. Scotland may be a small country, but our elected representatives should not roll over just because America snaps its fingers. (...)
What about the fact that al Megrahi is still alive? Kenny MacAskill could deal only with the expert medical information he was given. He is not a medical man. He depended on the reports of the experts.
As any doctor knows, predicting how long someone with a terminal illness will last is far from being an exact science. Various factors can come into play, such as the morale of the person suffering the illness.
Al Megrahi’s return to his family may well have had a positive effect on his inner wellbeing. What no one disputes is that al Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer.
I applaud First Minister Alex Salmond's statement that he will not let the US “bully” Scotland. He is right to point out that American anger at the huge BP oil spill has fuelled the attacks on his government by politicians from across the Atlantic.
“This is all about BP,” he said. “We don’t object to people asking us questions, but the point about going to the Senate hearing is quite clear. Serving ministers are responsible to their parliaments and their people. I am responsible to the people and parliament of Scotland – not, with great respect, to the American senators.
“No American senator or government official would ever turn to any other parliament’s committee to be held responsible. No American came to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, for example.”
Mr Salmond has written to Senator John Kerry, who will chair the US Senate committee, laying out the Scottish Government’s position on the matter. He added: “John Kerry described the letter of evidence that I sent as thoughtful and thorough and asked if it could be read on to the record of the committee, and I said yes.
“That tells everything that we have got to say on the issue. They are inquiring into BP’s influence, as they see it, in securing the release of al Megrahi. BP had no influence over the Scottish Government and there was no contact between BP and the Scottish Government – formal or informal – in this entire process. Fact.”
We could do with an inquiry into the whole Pan Am case, but it should be an independent inquiry, not a piece of political theatre designed to save skins in Washington.
US warnings on Megrahi release have come true
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Pressure is mounting on Alex Salmond after it emerged that two warnings issued by the US Government about releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi back to Libya have been borne out by events.
Just eight days before the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing boarded a plane back to Tripoli, Richard LeBaron, a diplomat at the US embassy in London, wrote to the First Minister, raising concerns that, if he had to be released, Megrahi should stay in Scotland because if he returned to Libya, he would receive a hero’s welcome.
LeBaron also told Salmond that a release on compassionate grounds would become increasingly hard to justify the longer the Libyan survived beyond the three-month prognosis.
The warnings from Washington have proved prescient as Megrahi was indeed given a hero’s welcome – complete with the flying of Scottish saltires at the airport, which caused revulsion across Scotland and beyond – and his survival after 11 months has prolonged the controversy about his release. (...)
The Herald revealed in 2005 that UK and US officials were meeting in secret to agree a way to transfer Megrahi back to Libya.
[See also the report in this week's Sunday Express headed "US Spy's secret 'desert deal' before release of Lockerbie bomber".]
Pressure is mounting on Alex Salmond after it emerged that two warnings issued by the US Government about releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi back to Libya have been borne out by events.
Just eight days before the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing boarded a plane back to Tripoli, Richard LeBaron, a diplomat at the US embassy in London, wrote to the First Minister, raising concerns that, if he had to be released, Megrahi should stay in Scotland because if he returned to Libya, he would receive a hero’s welcome.
LeBaron also told Salmond that a release on compassionate grounds would become increasingly hard to justify the longer the Libyan survived beyond the three-month prognosis.
The warnings from Washington have proved prescient as Megrahi was indeed given a hero’s welcome – complete with the flying of Scottish saltires at the airport, which caused revulsion across Scotland and beyond – and his survival after 11 months has prolonged the controversy about his release. (...)
The Herald revealed in 2005 that UK and US officials were meeting in secret to agree a way to transfer Megrahi back to Libya.
[See also the report in this week's Sunday Express headed "US Spy's secret 'desert deal' before release of Lockerbie bomber".]
Monday, 26 July 2010
The letter to Alex Salmond from the US embassy
The US State Department has been shamed into releasing the letter to the First Minister dated 12 August 2009, referring to (and appending the text of) a letter sent three days earlier to the Scottish Government Justice Department. It can be read here.
Senators want UK officials at Lockerbie hearing
[This is the headline over a report from Associated Press just published on the website of The Washington Post. It reads in part:]
British and Scottish officials who have declined to appear at a hearing this week on the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi should reconsider in order to dispel "a cloud of suspicion" over the issue, two US senators said Monday.
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Sen Robert Menendez of New Jersey, standing in Times Square along with relatives of some of those killed in the bombing, said it was important to get the facts surrounding the circumstances of al-Meghrahi's 2009 release. The senators are probing whether an oil exploration deal between oil giant BP and Libya influenced the decision. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a hearing scheduled for Thursday.
"The abundance of incredible coincidences surrounding al-Megrahi's release deserves a real open, transparent hearing," Menendez said Monday.
"A cloud of suspicion will hang over the entire issue at least until all the looming questions are answered," he added.
[Does anyone think for even an instant that "a real open, transparent hearing" could be obtained before a committee composed of these grandstanding clowns?]
British and Scottish officials who have declined to appear at a hearing this week on the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi should reconsider in order to dispel "a cloud of suspicion" over the issue, two US senators said Monday.
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Sen Robert Menendez of New Jersey, standing in Times Square along with relatives of some of those killed in the bombing, said it was important to get the facts surrounding the circumstances of al-Meghrahi's 2009 release. The senators are probing whether an oil exploration deal between oil giant BP and Libya influenced the decision. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a hearing scheduled for Thursday.
"The abundance of incredible coincidences surrounding al-Megrahi's release deserves a real open, transparent hearing," Menendez said Monday.
"A cloud of suspicion will hang over the entire issue at least until all the looming questions are answered," he added.
[Does anyone think for even an instant that "a real open, transparent hearing" could be obtained before a committee composed of these grandstanding clowns?]
Lockerbie and the USA
[This is the heading over a press release just issued by the Scottish Government. It reads:]
First Minister Alex Salmond has today written to Senator Robert Menendez of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, responding to his five questions in relation the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing which Senator Menendez is chairing on Thursday (July 29).
Last week, Mr Salmond issued a substantive letter to Senator John Kerry, which Senator Kerry described as "thoughtful and thorough". (...)
The letter is below:
_____________________________
Dear Senator Menendez
Thank you for your letters of 22 and 23 July 2010 to the Scottish Government.
I wrote to Senator Kerry in his role as Chairman of the Committee on 21 July 2010, setting out the Scottish Government's position on the key issues that have been raised in recent weeks, and Senator Kerry has noted his appreciation for what he described as a "thoughtful and thorough" reply. I have given permission for my letter to be entered into the official record of the hearing on 29 July 2010. I have also made available Scottish Government staff in Washington to answer questions from staff of Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I am grateful for your acknowledgement of this and our offer of further assistance.
You have asked for further information in a number of areas. I have asked officials to respond to your requests, and responses can be found in the attached Annex.
The Scottish Government would be happy to write to you with answers to any further questions you may have. As I indicated to Senator Kerry, the Scottish Government is respectfully declining your invitations to attend the hearing.
Alex Salmond
ANNEX
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AL-MEGRAHI
1. Any documents including communications to and from Scottish Government officials, relating to the decision to release Al Megrahi or negotiations to release Al Megrahi. This request includes any communications between Scottish Commerce Secretary for Justice Kenneth MacAskill and UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
The Scottish Government has released all correspondence from the Scottish Government to the UK Government relating to these issues. Within these documents there are some redactions to protect the confidentiality of the US and UK Governments. We would be happy to remove the redactions with the agreement of the US and UK Governments.
Correspondence from the Scottish Government to the UK Government
The UK Government has released correspondence from it to the Scottish Government relating to these issues.
Ministry of Justice - correspondence
Foreign and Commonwealth Office - correspondence
In addition to the above, there is a range of documents relating to the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, for example the PTA application and process, the compassionate release application and process, correspondence, and the announcement of the decision. The link below provides access to these documents.
www.scotland.gov.uk/lockerbie
Please note that Kenny MacAskill is the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government, not the "Scottish Commerce Secretary for Justice".
2. Any documents, including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the Justice Committee investigation of the Al Megrahi release, the Scottish Parliament investigation of the Al Megrahi release, or any other investigation of the Al Megrahi case and release.
There have been two Parliamentary inquiries into these issues:
Scottish Parliament Justice Committee: Below are links to the Committee's papers, the Committee's final report and the Scottish Government's response.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice's evidence to the committee - is available in the official report from the Committee's meeting of 1 December 2009
UK Parliament Scottish Affairs Committee - Committee's final report on Scotland and the UK: cooperation and communication between governments
3. Any documents, including communications to or from senior Scottish Government officials, relating to BP's negotiations for or interest in oil exploration in Libya.
There are no such documents.
4. Any documents, including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the British Government's position on Al Megrahi's release or transfer to Libyan custody.
All exchanges between the Scottish and UK Governments have been published where we have been given permission to do so.
The UK Government's position regarding the release of Mr Al Megrahi was stated by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in the UK House of Commons on 12 October 2009:
"British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation, would be damaged - perhaps badly - if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison. Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction, we made it clear .... that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK Government and that as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody".
5. Any documents including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the US government's position on Al Megrahi's release or transfer to Libyan custody.
The US Government has refused publication of various documents. The link below contains the correspondence with the US Government about this. The Scottish Government cannot breach the long-standing practice of holding in confidence government to government communications, by publishing this material without the permission of the US Government. The Senate Committee may wish to pursue these issues. The material related to the US Government includes representations by the US Government regarding the release of Mr Al-Megrahi and notes of meetings between the Scottish and US Governments over the period 2008-9.
Correspondence with the US Government regarding publication of documents
First Minister Alex Salmond has today written to Senator Robert Menendez of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, responding to his five questions in relation the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing which Senator Menendez is chairing on Thursday (July 29).
Last week, Mr Salmond issued a substantive letter to Senator John Kerry, which Senator Kerry described as "thoughtful and thorough". (...)
The letter is below:
_____________________________
Dear Senator Menendez
Thank you for your letters of 22 and 23 July 2010 to the Scottish Government.
I wrote to Senator Kerry in his role as Chairman of the Committee on 21 July 2010, setting out the Scottish Government's position on the key issues that have been raised in recent weeks, and Senator Kerry has noted his appreciation for what he described as a "thoughtful and thorough" reply. I have given permission for my letter to be entered into the official record of the hearing on 29 July 2010. I have also made available Scottish Government staff in Washington to answer questions from staff of Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I am grateful for your acknowledgement of this and our offer of further assistance.
You have asked for further information in a number of areas. I have asked officials to respond to your requests, and responses can be found in the attached Annex.
The Scottish Government would be happy to write to you with answers to any further questions you may have. As I indicated to Senator Kerry, the Scottish Government is respectfully declining your invitations to attend the hearing.
Alex Salmond
ANNEX
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AL-MEGRAHI
1. Any documents including communications to and from Scottish Government officials, relating to the decision to release Al Megrahi or negotiations to release Al Megrahi. This request includes any communications between Scottish Commerce Secretary for Justice Kenneth MacAskill and UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
The Scottish Government has released all correspondence from the Scottish Government to the UK Government relating to these issues. Within these documents there are some redactions to protect the confidentiality of the US and UK Governments. We would be happy to remove the redactions with the agreement of the US and UK Governments.
Correspondence from the Scottish Government to the UK Government
The UK Government has released correspondence from it to the Scottish Government relating to these issues.
Ministry of Justice - correspondence
Foreign and Commonwealth Office - correspondence
In addition to the above, there is a range of documents relating to the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, for example the PTA application and process, the compassionate release application and process, correspondence, and the announcement of the decision. The link below provides access to these documents.
www.scotland.gov.uk/lockerbie
Please note that Kenny MacAskill is the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government, not the "Scottish Commerce Secretary for Justice".
2. Any documents, including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the Justice Committee investigation of the Al Megrahi release, the Scottish Parliament investigation of the Al Megrahi release, or any other investigation of the Al Megrahi case and release.
There have been two Parliamentary inquiries into these issues:
Scottish Parliament Justice Committee: Below are links to the Committee's papers, the Committee's final report and the Scottish Government's response.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice's evidence to the committee - is available in the official report from the Committee's meeting of 1 December 2009
UK Parliament Scottish Affairs Committee - Committee's final report on Scotland and the UK: cooperation and communication between governments
3. Any documents, including communications to or from senior Scottish Government officials, relating to BP's negotiations for or interest in oil exploration in Libya.
There are no such documents.
4. Any documents, including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the British Government's position on Al Megrahi's release or transfer to Libyan custody.
All exchanges between the Scottish and UK Governments have been published where we have been given permission to do so.
The UK Government's position regarding the release of Mr Al Megrahi was stated by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in the UK House of Commons on 12 October 2009:
"British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation, would be damaged - perhaps badly - if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison. Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction, we made it clear .... that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK Government and that as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody".
5. Any documents including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the US government's position on Al Megrahi's release or transfer to Libyan custody.
The US Government has refused publication of various documents. The link below contains the correspondence with the US Government about this. The Scottish Government cannot breach the long-standing practice of holding in confidence government to government communications, by publishing this material without the permission of the US Government. The Senate Committee may wish to pursue these issues. The material related to the US Government includes representations by the US Government regarding the release of Mr Al-Megrahi and notes of meetings between the Scottish and US Governments over the period 2008-9.
Correspondence with the US Government regarding publication of documents
Lockerbie probe may prove uncomfortable for Obama administration
[This is the headline over a report published today on the CNS News website. The following are excerpts:]
The four Democratic US senators probing the early release of the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing believe there were links to a BP oil deal, but their inquiry may have the unintended consequence of raising questions about just how strongly the Obama administration opposed the Libyan’s release. (...)
Scottish government ministers, stung by accusations that they released Megrahi to ease a massive oil exploration contract in Libya, are pointing out that it is the US government that is blocking the release of two documents relating to the decision.
One of the documents is a demarche and letter to Scottish First Minister Salmond from deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in London, Richard LeBaron, dated August 12, 2009, eight days before Megrahi was released.
Leaked to London’s Sunday Times this week, the letter reportedly argues that Megrahi should remain in custody – but goes on to say that if Scotland concludes he must be released, then doing so on compassionate grounds would be “far preferable” to his repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) which Britain negotiated with Libya in 2007. (...)
The second document which Scotland says the US is withholding permission to make public is a note of a telephone conversation between Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder, apparently on June 26, 2009. The contents of that note remain secret.
Edinburgh says the two documents – the LeBaron letter and the MacAskill-Holder note – were both “part of the package of advice” MacAskill had before him when he made the decision to send Megrahi home last August.
At the height of last August’s controversy, Scotland made public its correspondence relating to the matter. On August 26, it asked the US government for permission to include the two documents in those it was releasing – offering to do so in redacted form if necessary.
But in a written reply on Sept 1, LeBaron declined. (...)
CNSNews.com also asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether it would request that the administration make the two documents available for its hearing into the matter, scheduled for Thursday. In response, spokesman Frederick Jones merely said the committee did not have the documents in its possession.
Edinburgh law professor Robert Black, an expert on the Lockerbie case, opined on his blog that if the LeBaron letter effectively accepted Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds as preferable to transfer under the prisoner transfer agreement, “it is unlikely – in a mid-term election year – that the US government would consent to its release or that Democrat senators would seriously try to persuade it to do so.” (...)
Potential witnesses not known to have been called by the committee include:
-- Tony Blair, the former British prime minister whose 2007 visit to Libya included an agreement on a PTA and the signing of “the single largest exploration commitment in BP’s 100-year history.”
-- British Ambassador to the US Nigel Sheinwald, who as a foreign policy advisor to Blair accompanied him on two key visits to Libya.
-- Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, who played a key role in Tripoli’s political and trade negotiations with Britain. (He has traveled to the US before, and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the State Department in late 2008.)
-- Graham Forbes, chairman of the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which after a four-year investigation concluded in 2007 that there “may have been a miscarriage of justice” and recommended that Megrahi be allowed to an appeal.
-- Prof Robert Black, the law expert who designed the unusual format under which the Lockerbie trial was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law. Black in 2005 called Megrahi’s conviction “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for 100 years.”
-- Prof Hans Koechler, an Austrian academic nominated by the UN to observe the 84-day trial, who also believes justice was not done.
-- Robert Baer, a retired Middle East CIA operative, who has claimed that Iran was behind the bombing.
[The following are two paragraphs from a report on the CNN website:]
A pair of US senators and the families of Lockerbie bombing victims will hold a news conference Monday in Times Square ahead of this week's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter.
Sen Robert Menendez of New Jersey will chair Thursday's hearing on last year's release by Scotland of a Libyan man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also is a member of the committee.
The four Democratic US senators probing the early release of the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing believe there were links to a BP oil deal, but their inquiry may have the unintended consequence of raising questions about just how strongly the Obama administration opposed the Libyan’s release. (...)
Scottish government ministers, stung by accusations that they released Megrahi to ease a massive oil exploration contract in Libya, are pointing out that it is the US government that is blocking the release of two documents relating to the decision.
One of the documents is a demarche and letter to Scottish First Minister Salmond from deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in London, Richard LeBaron, dated August 12, 2009, eight days before Megrahi was released.
Leaked to London’s Sunday Times this week, the letter reportedly argues that Megrahi should remain in custody – but goes on to say that if Scotland concludes he must be released, then doing so on compassionate grounds would be “far preferable” to his repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) which Britain negotiated with Libya in 2007. (...)
The second document which Scotland says the US is withholding permission to make public is a note of a telephone conversation between Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder, apparently on June 26, 2009. The contents of that note remain secret.
Edinburgh says the two documents – the LeBaron letter and the MacAskill-Holder note – were both “part of the package of advice” MacAskill had before him when he made the decision to send Megrahi home last August.
At the height of last August’s controversy, Scotland made public its correspondence relating to the matter. On August 26, it asked the US government for permission to include the two documents in those it was releasing – offering to do so in redacted form if necessary.
But in a written reply on Sept 1, LeBaron declined. (...)
CNSNews.com also asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether it would request that the administration make the two documents available for its hearing into the matter, scheduled for Thursday. In response, spokesman Frederick Jones merely said the committee did not have the documents in its possession.
Edinburgh law professor Robert Black, an expert on the Lockerbie case, opined on his blog that if the LeBaron letter effectively accepted Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds as preferable to transfer under the prisoner transfer agreement, “it is unlikely – in a mid-term election year – that the US government would consent to its release or that Democrat senators would seriously try to persuade it to do so.” (...)
Potential witnesses not known to have been called by the committee include:
-- Tony Blair, the former British prime minister whose 2007 visit to Libya included an agreement on a PTA and the signing of “the single largest exploration commitment in BP’s 100-year history.”
-- British Ambassador to the US Nigel Sheinwald, who as a foreign policy advisor to Blair accompanied him on two key visits to Libya.
-- Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, who played a key role in Tripoli’s political and trade negotiations with Britain. (He has traveled to the US before, and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the State Department in late 2008.)
-- Graham Forbes, chairman of the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which after a four-year investigation concluded in 2007 that there “may have been a miscarriage of justice” and recommended that Megrahi be allowed to an appeal.
-- Prof Robert Black, the law expert who designed the unusual format under which the Lockerbie trial was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law. Black in 2005 called Megrahi’s conviction “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for 100 years.”
-- Prof Hans Koechler, an Austrian academic nominated by the UN to observe the 84-day trial, who also believes justice was not done.
-- Robert Baer, a retired Middle East CIA operative, who has claimed that Iran was behind the bombing.
[The following are two paragraphs from a report on the CNN website:]
A pair of US senators and the families of Lockerbie bombing victims will hold a news conference Monday in Times Square ahead of this week's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter.
Sen Robert Menendez of New Jersey will chair Thursday's hearing on last year's release by Scotland of a Libyan man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also is a member of the committee.
Vital point missed in Megrahi controversy
[This is the heading over a letter from Brian Barder in today's edition of The Guardian. It reads as follows:]
In all the renewed controversy over the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing ... a vital point seems to have been missed. Under the terms of the US-UK "initiative" under which Megrahi was convicted, he was required to serve his sentence in the UK. The initiative was accepted by Libya and approved by UN security council resolution 1192. For that reason Megrahi could never have been transferred to serve the rest of his sentence in Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) negotiated by the Blair government with Libya, regardless of whether Megrahi was included in or excluded from its scope.
It's difficult to understand how the PTA came to be signed when it could never have been used to transfer Megrahi, the only Libyan then in UK custody. If BP was pressing for Megrahi to be transferred under the PTA, why was it not told that this was ruled out by the terms of the original agreement? Why didn't Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill point this out to Tony Blair and Jack Straw when they were arguing about the pros and cons of the PTA? Above all, when Blair and Straw made their "concession" to the Libyans under which Megrahi was not after all to be excluded from the PTA, did they remind the Libyans that Megrahi couldn't be transferred to Libya? If not, why not?
In an article published on Comment is Free on 1 September 2009, Oliver Miles pointed out that Megrahi's transfer to Libya under the PTA would have been contrary to the original agreement. It's strange that even then no one seems to have seen the implications of this.
[The implications had, of course, already been seen on this blog: Britain accused of breaking promise to US over Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and Foreign Office told Scotland it made no promises to US over how long Megrahi would stay in prison.
The reason why the "promise" was not taken seriously by the UK Foreign Office was that the only country that might have an interest in complaining if it was broken was the United States of America. And both the United Kingdom government and the Libyan government knew (because they had checked) that Washington was relaxed about Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, though it would have to huff and puff for US public consumption when it happened.]
In all the renewed controversy over the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing ... a vital point seems to have been missed. Under the terms of the US-UK "initiative" under which Megrahi was convicted, he was required to serve his sentence in the UK. The initiative was accepted by Libya and approved by UN security council resolution 1192. For that reason Megrahi could never have been transferred to serve the rest of his sentence in Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) negotiated by the Blair government with Libya, regardless of whether Megrahi was included in or excluded from its scope.
It's difficult to understand how the PTA came to be signed when it could never have been used to transfer Megrahi, the only Libyan then in UK custody. If BP was pressing for Megrahi to be transferred under the PTA, why was it not told that this was ruled out by the terms of the original agreement? Why didn't Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill point this out to Tony Blair and Jack Straw when they were arguing about the pros and cons of the PTA? Above all, when Blair and Straw made their "concession" to the Libyans under which Megrahi was not after all to be excluded from the PTA, did they remind the Libyans that Megrahi couldn't be transferred to Libya? If not, why not?
In an article published on Comment is Free on 1 September 2009, Oliver Miles pointed out that Megrahi's transfer to Libya under the PTA would have been contrary to the original agreement. It's strange that even then no one seems to have seen the implications of this.
[The implications had, of course, already been seen on this blog: Britain accused of breaking promise to US over Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and Foreign Office told Scotland it made no promises to US over how long Megrahi would stay in prison.
The reason why the "promise" was not taken seriously by the UK Foreign Office was that the only country that might have an interest in complaining if it was broken was the United States of America. And both the United Kingdom government and the Libyan government knew (because they had checked) that Washington was relaxed about Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, though it would have to huff and puff for US public consumption when it happened.]
US may release Lockerbie files
[This is the headline over a report in The Herald by UK Political Editor Michael Settle. It reads in part:]
The US Government is deciding whether to release all of its Lockerbie files, after Alex Salmond called for full disclosure – including details of the contacts between the UK Government and BP.
With a Senate hearing just four days away, the focus is beginning to fall on the exchanges between Washington, Edinburgh and London in the run-up to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Louis Susman, the American ambassador to Britain, stressed the US Government is examining whether its correspondence over Megrahi could be released. “We will come up with a decision later on in relation to the hearing,” he said.
Salmond, meanwhile, noted the previous UK Government’s exchanges with BP were “more extensive than anyone had hitherto thought”. The First Minister was referring to a seven-page letter sent at the weekend to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by William Hague, the UK Foreign Secretary, confirming BP had met the former Labour Government five times in October and November 2007 over fears that disputes about a prisoner transfer agreement could damage its oil exploration contracts with Libya.
However, Hague emphasised this was a “perfectly normal and legitimate practice for a British company”, and said there was no evidence to corroborate the allegation BP was involved in Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
In the autumn of 2007, Jack Straw, the former UK Justice Secretary, had at least two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent and a BP consultant. It has been suggested the oil giant, which a few months earlier had signed the “deal in the desert” with Tripoli, worth almost £600 million, was concerned that any delay in the prisoner transfer agreement between Libya and the UK could damage its commercial interests. (...)
Salmond said: “Just as I would say it would be helpful for the US to publish all the correspondence, the present Prime Minister is right in saying he is going to publish all that correspondence as well. When all that is published, the position of the Scottish Government will be vindicated.
“We’ve acted throughout with total integrity.” (...)
Elsewhere, a leaked memo has shown that while the US Government did not want Megrahi released, it made clear that compassionate grounds were “far preferable” to his transfer to a Libyan jail.
This seems to fly in the face of the statement last week by Barack Obama that America had been “surprised, disappointed and angry” about the release.
Susman said: “We had a mutual understanding with the British Government that if he was tried and convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland.
“The fact [MacAskill] made a decision on compassionate grounds to release him was something we were not in favour of.”
The US Government is deciding whether to release all of its Lockerbie files, after Alex Salmond called for full disclosure – including details of the contacts between the UK Government and BP.
With a Senate hearing just four days away, the focus is beginning to fall on the exchanges between Washington, Edinburgh and London in the run-up to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Louis Susman, the American ambassador to Britain, stressed the US Government is examining whether its correspondence over Megrahi could be released. “We will come up with a decision later on in relation to the hearing,” he said.
Salmond, meanwhile, noted the previous UK Government’s exchanges with BP were “more extensive than anyone had hitherto thought”. The First Minister was referring to a seven-page letter sent at the weekend to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by William Hague, the UK Foreign Secretary, confirming BP had met the former Labour Government five times in October and November 2007 over fears that disputes about a prisoner transfer agreement could damage its oil exploration contracts with Libya.
However, Hague emphasised this was a “perfectly normal and legitimate practice for a British company”, and said there was no evidence to corroborate the allegation BP was involved in Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
In the autumn of 2007, Jack Straw, the former UK Justice Secretary, had at least two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent and a BP consultant. It has been suggested the oil giant, which a few months earlier had signed the “deal in the desert” with Tripoli, worth almost £600 million, was concerned that any delay in the prisoner transfer agreement between Libya and the UK could damage its commercial interests. (...)
Salmond said: “Just as I would say it would be helpful for the US to publish all the correspondence, the present Prime Minister is right in saying he is going to publish all that correspondence as well. When all that is published, the position of the Scottish Government will be vindicated.
“We’ve acted throughout with total integrity.” (...)
Elsewhere, a leaked memo has shown that while the US Government did not want Megrahi released, it made clear that compassionate grounds were “far preferable” to his transfer to a Libyan jail.
This seems to fly in the face of the statement last week by Barack Obama that America had been “surprised, disappointed and angry” about the release.
Susman said: “We had a mutual understanding with the British Government that if he was tried and convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland.
“The fact [MacAskill] made a decision on compassionate grounds to release him was something we were not in favour of.”
Sunday, 25 July 2010
A rather different perspective
On The Oligarch Kings blog today there is a post by David Macadam entitled "Lockerbie, the Scottish Bar and Libya: a different truth perhaps?". The last few paragraphs read as follows:]
The matter was referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] whose own report, reluctantly oh so reluctantly, accepted that a miscarriage of justice had happened.
And Al-Megrahi appealed.
Scotland is a devolved country within the UK. Matters legal are dealt with by its own Justice Minister who is Kenny McAskill. Now Kenny is a nice guy. When he was in practise it was as a partner in a down home Mom and Pop law shop dealing with the daily concerns of ordinary people. He showed genuine concern and this lead him to politics where his calm manner and common touch have made him friends. But a diplomatic background or any international legal experience is not his.
This appeal had every likelihood of going ahead. If it did it would undoubtedly have been a disaster to the profession and to Scotland’s legal standing in the world.
Worse was to happen. Al-Megrahi fell ill with prostate cancer and a nightmare for the profession loomed. It was entirely likely that Al-Megrahi would be found innocent and it was just as likely, given the length of time the appeal would take, that he (an innocent man) would die a lingering death in a Scottish jail far from his home and family. Desperate for a way out of this quandary, did the profession do what it does best? Did it panic and send Kenny in to bat?
Kenny certainly does something really out of place for a justice minister. He turns up personally in the jail to negotiate with Al-Megrahi. The deal? We might speculate that it was to drop the appeal, and Kenny would invoke a little known part of a 1993 act which would allow him to release Megrahi as a compassionate act.
The appeal was certainly dropped and Al-Megrahi was back in Tripoli a fortnight later.
So, is Megrahi is back in Libya, not because BP were dealing with Libya, or any deal with the British Government but because the Scottish legal profession were terrified that the whole mess, which had been their one and only throw on the world stage, would come unravelled and their bar would end up looking like a bunch of backwood hicks and amateurs? It also entirely denies anyone ever being able to test Al-Megrahi’s arguments under court conditions. Did they put their own legal political expediency over justice?
It worked a treat boys didn’t it?
The matter was referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] whose own report, reluctantly oh so reluctantly, accepted that a miscarriage of justice had happened.
And Al-Megrahi appealed.
Scotland is a devolved country within the UK. Matters legal are dealt with by its own Justice Minister who is Kenny McAskill. Now Kenny is a nice guy. When he was in practise it was as a partner in a down home Mom and Pop law shop dealing with the daily concerns of ordinary people. He showed genuine concern and this lead him to politics where his calm manner and common touch have made him friends. But a diplomatic background or any international legal experience is not his.
This appeal had every likelihood of going ahead. If it did it would undoubtedly have been a disaster to the profession and to Scotland’s legal standing in the world.
Worse was to happen. Al-Megrahi fell ill with prostate cancer and a nightmare for the profession loomed. It was entirely likely that Al-Megrahi would be found innocent and it was just as likely, given the length of time the appeal would take, that he (an innocent man) would die a lingering death in a Scottish jail far from his home and family. Desperate for a way out of this quandary, did the profession do what it does best? Did it panic and send Kenny in to bat?
Kenny certainly does something really out of place for a justice minister. He turns up personally in the jail to negotiate with Al-Megrahi. The deal? We might speculate that it was to drop the appeal, and Kenny would invoke a little known part of a 1993 act which would allow him to release Megrahi as a compassionate act.
The appeal was certainly dropped and Al-Megrahi was back in Tripoli a fortnight later.
So, is Megrahi is back in Libya, not because BP were dealing with Libya, or any deal with the British Government but because the Scottish legal profession were terrified that the whole mess, which had been their one and only throw on the world stage, would come unravelled and their bar would end up looking like a bunch of backwood hicks and amateurs? It also entirely denies anyone ever being able to test Al-Megrahi’s arguments under court conditions. Did they put their own legal political expediency over justice?
It worked a treat boys didn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)