[This is the headline over an article which has just appeared on the website of the Scottish Review by Kenneth Roy, the editor. It reads in part:]
Friday would be a good day to be out of the country. The first anniversary of the release from Greenock prison of the man commonly described as the Lockerbie bomber will provoke an extreme reaction from the popular press and from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. The attack dogs are in place. They will soon be given the nod to do their rabid worst.
The most depressing aspect of the Lockerbie affair, as we approach this latest milestone, is the refusal of those opposed to Megrahi's liberation to contemplate the likelihood that a colossal miscarriage of justice took place. The flaky foundations of the prosecution case, the lack of credibility of the chief prosecution witness, the suggestion – never denied – that he was in the pay of the CIA, the judgement of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there were compelling grounds for a second appeal, the existence of important new evidence which has never been divulged – all these matters have been squarely presented by those closest to the case, including one of the victims, the heroic Jim Swire.
But it has made very little if any difference. When Friday dawns, Megrahi will still be 'the bomber' rather than 'the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing' and there will be a shrill renewal of a deeply unpleasant question: why is this man not dead?
For believers in God, there ought to be a simple answer: God has so far decreed otherwise. Since many of those who insist on putting the question are indeed believers, some fervently so, we can only conclude that they consider this case beyond God; that it is too important to be left to God; that Megrahi's continued survival should be no business of God's. Beyond God – who knows? Beyond reason – certainly. In the Lockerbie case, rationality was abandoned long ago. (...)
[T]he essence of the case adjudicated by Mr MacAskill – the nub of it – has never been pointed out, except once in this magazine. It is extremely strange that it has been so overlooked. No doubt many with an interest in the case, in the media and elsewhere, regard it as an inconvenience. Perhaps for the Scottish government to acknowledge it would be too embarrassing since it reflects so badly on an important aspect of social policy. But, given the continuing obsession with Megrahi's health, its complete absence from the discussion still feels odd.
Here it is, then.
The question facing Mr MacAskill was not whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months but whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months if he remained in prison. When, many months ago, I first stated this as my reading of the situation, no one challenged it. Indeed there was an informal acknowledgement from quite a high source that this was indeed the question facing the justice secretary.
This issue was never raised again. So far as I know, it has never been used as part of a wider justification of Mr MacAskill's action. Yet is it not quite important? Anyone familiar with the inside of a Scottish prison will know how important. The typical Scottish prison (I have not visited Greenock, but I know Barlinnie and Saughton) is a disgusting institution harmful to the health and well-being of inmates. It is well-documented that Megrahi himself, as well as being physically sick, was mentally in a very poor state.
His chances of survival beyond three months in such an environment were not considered high. Indeed the idea of anyone with terminal cancer languishing in such a place is repellent. But it is reasonable to assume that once released, and returned home to his family and familiar surroundings, his life expectancy would improve to some extent. Anyone who denies the possibility of such an improvement must know very little of the workings of the human psyche; or is simply being disingenuous.
I don't expect any of this will moderate the political and media frenzy which is about to overwhelm us. I feel sorry for Kenny MacAskill, a decent man who did the decent thing, and has been paying a heavy price ever since. His decision was a humane one. It remains the correct one.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Legal action possible following “biased” STV Lockerbie bombing film
[This is the heading over a press release just issued by the SNP's Christine Grahame MSP. It reads as follows:]
STV may face legal action following the screening of a controversial documentary covering the Lockerbie bombing after the film was described as deeply misleading by an MSP. Christine Grahame has written to STV’s Chief Executive Rob Woodward pointing out that unfounded allegations repeated in the film had previously resulted in legal action from Air Malta. In 1993 the airline won a significant out of court settlement against Granada TV who also claimed the bag containing the bomb had been transported, unaccompanied, on one of their flights. Ms Grahame said:
“I was extremely disappointed when I saw the STV documentary and the one-sided and biased manner in which they recounted the events surrounding the atrocity.
“There remains very serious doubts over the safety of the conviction, but the STV film apparently chose to focus on the controversial and highly disputed claims of the senior investigators.
“There were a number if misleading statements made in the film, but I think the most worrying from STV's perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the case alleged to have carried the bomb, was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight.
“When Air Malta sued Granada TV for making the same unfounded allegation the airline was able to prove that all 55 bags that were loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers. Granada TV were forced to settle out of court and pay costs to Air Malta and to this day not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight.
“I now understand that Air Malta are considering whether to take similar legal action against STV for repeating this unfounded allegation.
“Once again the gaping holes in the case raise serious questions over the safety of the conviction and have exposed the superficiality of the recent STV film.
“In October at a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference in Perth I am planning to hold a screening of another documentary covering the case which raises serious questions over how the police and FBI investigation was handled. The film ... has already won international awards and reveals some shocking new details which cast further doubt over the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction. So far no British broadcaster, including STV, has been brave enough to show it.”
STV may face legal action following the screening of a controversial documentary covering the Lockerbie bombing after the film was described as deeply misleading by an MSP. Christine Grahame has written to STV’s Chief Executive Rob Woodward pointing out that unfounded allegations repeated in the film had previously resulted in legal action from Air Malta. In 1993 the airline won a significant out of court settlement against Granada TV who also claimed the bag containing the bomb had been transported, unaccompanied, on one of their flights. Ms Grahame said:
“I was extremely disappointed when I saw the STV documentary and the one-sided and biased manner in which they recounted the events surrounding the atrocity.
“There remains very serious doubts over the safety of the conviction, but the STV film apparently chose to focus on the controversial and highly disputed claims of the senior investigators.
“There were a number if misleading statements made in the film, but I think the most worrying from STV's perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the case alleged to have carried the bomb, was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight.
“When Air Malta sued Granada TV for making the same unfounded allegation the airline was able to prove that all 55 bags that were loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers. Granada TV were forced to settle out of court and pay costs to Air Malta and to this day not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight.
“I now understand that Air Malta are considering whether to take similar legal action against STV for repeating this unfounded allegation.
“Once again the gaping holes in the case raise serious questions over the safety of the conviction and have exposed the superficiality of the recent STV film.
“In October at a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference in Perth I am planning to hold a screening of another documentary covering the case which raises serious questions over how the police and FBI investigation was handled. The film ... has already won international awards and reveals some shocking new details which cast further doubt over the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction. So far no British broadcaster, including STV, has been brave enough to show it.”
Is it possible that something good could yet come from evil of Lockerbie atrocity?
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
It has always been my hope that something good could be made to come out of the carnage and destruction of the Lockerbie horror – something to hearten rather than depress all of us.
Many voices, particularly in the US, have been raised to deplore the fact Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has not died, as statistically he should have done within about three months of his compassionate release; such sentiments are not good.
Libya has a primary healthcare system not unlike our NHS. The secondary care is very different. Libya is too small (its population being around five million) to support world-leading complex secondary care, and the research teams that go with it, so that where complex secondary care is needed, in selected cases the patient may be flown to a centre of excellence, often in Europe or even occasionally America. In some cases, foreign experts are called in to advise or treat in Libya.
A year ago Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, received advice from Scottish Prison Service doctors and other international cancer experts that Megrahi had a roughly 50/50 chance of living three months. Over the past year, the Libyan regime has become increasingly reticent in talking about Megrahi, so even those of us with special interests in his health are ignorant of what treatment he may have received. It is evident his survival is very important to the Libyan regime; therefore, we can assume the best medical expertise in the world has been called to his bedside. It is for Megrahi to have privacy over his treatment and condition for now.
Mother nature has provided that roughly half the population of Scotland and Libya are men, and thus susceptible to cancer of the prostate gland. Prostate cancer in some form would be commonly found if men of Megrahi’s age were examined in detail. Of these, most will have inactive cancers. Megrahi’s cancer was an aggressive form and had spread to his bones before he left Scotland, where conventional treatment had been offered, had failed and hence his lifespan then was reasonably estimated to be about three months.
He has now had time to benefit from the best cutting-edge research and treatment available in the world, most probably from America, possibly stem cell.
Let us invite the Libyan regime to let the world know (when the time is right) what treatment this remarkable survivor received, so that not only the 2.5 million men in Libya, and the same in Scotland, but the three billion men worldwide can know there is new hope against this cancer.
Because the Libyan oilfields are being revitalised by modern technology, with Lockerbie sanctions long lifted, their national income is rising steeply. Libya might be prepared to fund a new world-class research agency for cancer treatment to attract the best physicians in the world. Perhaps the US senators, alleged to be seeking information about Megrahi’s treatment, could also put their weight behind such a project. Bids might start at around $2m – the amount allegedly used to bribe Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who identified Megrahi in the first place.
Such a centre could lessen the load of loss for Lockerbie relatives, something benign to remember along with the horror. Maybe the Libyan regime would consider underwriting such a world-class centre, perhaps through the United Nations’ World Health Organisation, and maybe with a title to remind us that sometimes, just sometimes, good can come even out of such evil.
I know our Flora would have approved of such a project.
[The other readers' letters published under the same heading are also worth reading.]
It has always been my hope that something good could be made to come out of the carnage and destruction of the Lockerbie horror – something to hearten rather than depress all of us.
Many voices, particularly in the US, have been raised to deplore the fact Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has not died, as statistically he should have done within about three months of his compassionate release; such sentiments are not good.
Libya has a primary healthcare system not unlike our NHS. The secondary care is very different. Libya is too small (its population being around five million) to support world-leading complex secondary care, and the research teams that go with it, so that where complex secondary care is needed, in selected cases the patient may be flown to a centre of excellence, often in Europe or even occasionally America. In some cases, foreign experts are called in to advise or treat in Libya.
A year ago Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, received advice from Scottish Prison Service doctors and other international cancer experts that Megrahi had a roughly 50/50 chance of living three months. Over the past year, the Libyan regime has become increasingly reticent in talking about Megrahi, so even those of us with special interests in his health are ignorant of what treatment he may have received. It is evident his survival is very important to the Libyan regime; therefore, we can assume the best medical expertise in the world has been called to his bedside. It is for Megrahi to have privacy over his treatment and condition for now.
Mother nature has provided that roughly half the population of Scotland and Libya are men, and thus susceptible to cancer of the prostate gland. Prostate cancer in some form would be commonly found if men of Megrahi’s age were examined in detail. Of these, most will have inactive cancers. Megrahi’s cancer was an aggressive form and had spread to his bones before he left Scotland, where conventional treatment had been offered, had failed and hence his lifespan then was reasonably estimated to be about three months.
He has now had time to benefit from the best cutting-edge research and treatment available in the world, most probably from America, possibly stem cell.
Let us invite the Libyan regime to let the world know (when the time is right) what treatment this remarkable survivor received, so that not only the 2.5 million men in Libya, and the same in Scotland, but the three billion men worldwide can know there is new hope against this cancer.
Because the Libyan oilfields are being revitalised by modern technology, with Lockerbie sanctions long lifted, their national income is rising steeply. Libya might be prepared to fund a new world-class research agency for cancer treatment to attract the best physicians in the world. Perhaps the US senators, alleged to be seeking information about Megrahi’s treatment, could also put their weight behind such a project. Bids might start at around $2m – the amount allegedly used to bribe Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who identified Megrahi in the first place.
Such a centre could lessen the load of loss for Lockerbie relatives, something benign to remember along with the horror. Maybe the Libyan regime would consider underwriting such a world-class centre, perhaps through the United Nations’ World Health Organisation, and maybe with a title to remind us that sometimes, just sometimes, good can come even out of such evil.
I know our Flora would have approved of such a project.
[The other readers' letters published under the same heading are also worth reading.]
Mr al Megrahi is alive and there is nobody to blame
[This is the headline over an article by Libyan political analyst Mustafa Fetouri published today on the website of The National, a newspaper based in Abu Dhabi. It reads in part:]
It has been nearly a year since the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, declared his decision to release Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only person convicted for the downing of Pan-Am flight 103 in 1988. He was released on compassionate grounds, as Mr al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
August 20 also happened to be the day of the Libyan Youth Festival, an annual occasion celebrated by large crowds of young people in the capital Tripoli, where Mr al Megrahi’s plane landed. The crowds received news of his landing and they rushed to the airport to greet the man most of them believed to be innocent.
The tarmac was already filled with his extended family and members of his tribe, some of whom had been waiting since dawn to see their beloved son and to once again prove to themselves that he was innocent. The United States was angry at the “huge” welcome Mr al Megrahi received.
Flashback to 2007, the height of the effort to normalise relations between Libya and the UK: Tony Blair, the UK’s former prime minister, and Muammar Qaddafi oversaw a deal between British Petroleum and Libya’s NOC worth $US900 million. The deal effectively conceded oil exploration rights to BP just off the Gulf of Sirte, Mr Qaddafi’s hometown.
Now flash forward to May 2010: the Obama administration is shaken to the bone by the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico. It finds itself in the very difficult position of having to balance the needs of consumers who want cheap oil at the pump with the potential environmental risks that come with drilling. US senators, worried about being re-elected, ride the wave of public anger and try to discredit BP.
In doing so, they concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory, linking the dead fish in the Gulf of Mexico to Mr al Megrahi’s release, to the Scottish justice system, to the doctors who diagnosed the cancer patient, and all the way back to 2007’s BP Libya deal. They bundle the whole thing together and throw it at Mr Obama, as well as the British prime minister David Cameron on his way to Washington.
Now, Mr al Megrahi is still alive one year after he was released from prison as a terminally ill patient with three months to live. He might not be in good shape, but he is still alive (or, at least, the Libyans have been good about keeping his health under wraps, since few have managed to see him since January).
Mr al Megrahi still insists on his innocence. If only anyone would listen – not only to him, but to an increasingly growing public opinion that includes the head of the family association for Lockerbie families, Dr Jim Swire (whose daughter was also on the flight). A number of lawyers and legal experts are also not quite convinced that Mr al Megrahi blew up Pan Am flight 103 en route from Heathrow to New York 22 years ago.
I would not be surprised if Mr al Megrahi appears in public on the first anniversary of his release; the stage is ready to receive him. The same crowds of young Libyans are celebrating this year as well on the very same date he was released a year ago. If this happens, I would guess that agitated US politicians would probably call on the United Nations to intervene and stop those mad Libyans and punish Mr MacAskill.
Mr al Megrahi is still alive: who can they blame?
It’s amazing how the conspiracy theorists managed to connect all the dots and devise a perfect theory that revolves around the quest for oil rather than the quest for human dignity and respect. (...)
Why is it so important to prove that BP may have lobbied the British government to pressure Scotland for Mr al Megrahi’s release? Mr MacAskill acted on the order of compassion, after all, fulfilling an ailing man’s last wish to die next to his ageing mother.
It has been nearly a year since the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, declared his decision to release Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only person convicted for the downing of Pan-Am flight 103 in 1988. He was released on compassionate grounds, as Mr al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
August 20 also happened to be the day of the Libyan Youth Festival, an annual occasion celebrated by large crowds of young people in the capital Tripoli, where Mr al Megrahi’s plane landed. The crowds received news of his landing and they rushed to the airport to greet the man most of them believed to be innocent.
The tarmac was already filled with his extended family and members of his tribe, some of whom had been waiting since dawn to see their beloved son and to once again prove to themselves that he was innocent. The United States was angry at the “huge” welcome Mr al Megrahi received.
Flashback to 2007, the height of the effort to normalise relations between Libya and the UK: Tony Blair, the UK’s former prime minister, and Muammar Qaddafi oversaw a deal between British Petroleum and Libya’s NOC worth $US900 million. The deal effectively conceded oil exploration rights to BP just off the Gulf of Sirte, Mr Qaddafi’s hometown.
Now flash forward to May 2010: the Obama administration is shaken to the bone by the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico. It finds itself in the very difficult position of having to balance the needs of consumers who want cheap oil at the pump with the potential environmental risks that come with drilling. US senators, worried about being re-elected, ride the wave of public anger and try to discredit BP.
In doing so, they concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory, linking the dead fish in the Gulf of Mexico to Mr al Megrahi’s release, to the Scottish justice system, to the doctors who diagnosed the cancer patient, and all the way back to 2007’s BP Libya deal. They bundle the whole thing together and throw it at Mr Obama, as well as the British prime minister David Cameron on his way to Washington.
Now, Mr al Megrahi is still alive one year after he was released from prison as a terminally ill patient with three months to live. He might not be in good shape, but he is still alive (or, at least, the Libyans have been good about keeping his health under wraps, since few have managed to see him since January).
Mr al Megrahi still insists on his innocence. If only anyone would listen – not only to him, but to an increasingly growing public opinion that includes the head of the family association for Lockerbie families, Dr Jim Swire (whose daughter was also on the flight). A number of lawyers and legal experts are also not quite convinced that Mr al Megrahi blew up Pan Am flight 103 en route from Heathrow to New York 22 years ago.
I would not be surprised if Mr al Megrahi appears in public on the first anniversary of his release; the stage is ready to receive him. The same crowds of young Libyans are celebrating this year as well on the very same date he was released a year ago. If this happens, I would guess that agitated US politicians would probably call on the United Nations to intervene and stop those mad Libyans and punish Mr MacAskill.
Mr al Megrahi is still alive: who can they blame?
It’s amazing how the conspiracy theorists managed to connect all the dots and devise a perfect theory that revolves around the quest for oil rather than the quest for human dignity and respect. (...)
Why is it so important to prove that BP may have lobbied the British government to pressure Scotland for Mr al Megrahi’s release? Mr MacAskill acted on the order of compassion, after all, fulfilling an ailing man’s last wish to die next to his ageing mother.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
A year ago when the Lockerbie bomber was given three months to live, the media weren't exactly inundated by oncologists and other cancer experts publicly challenging the prognosis.
Yet 12 months later we have numerous "cancer experts" saying "I told you so" or "I was always unwilling to give a three month prognosis". Truly, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
So how accurate have these "experts" been up till now? Since 1993 24 prisoners in Scotland have been granted compassionate release on the basis that they only had three months to live. However, not a single one has died on the day when the three-month deadline was reached.
Seven prisoners (27 per cent) survived for more than three months. Seven died within days of release and one died in custody. If the three months were meant to be spent preparing for death, these latter prisoners were woefully short-changed by the experts who gave them a terminal prognosis. It also suggests that estimating time of death is at best a guess.
This reality is recognised within the US judicial system. There Megrahi would have been held in a federal penitentiary. Under the federal compassionate release scheme he would be entitled to release if he had a year left to live. However, the federal system also allows for release for terminal illnesses that do not "lend themselves to a precise prediction of life expectancy".
Strangely, this detail seems to have escaped the attention of those US senators who believe a prisoner failing to die as predicted represents a failure of the Scottish medical establishment.
Robert Menzies
[The above is the text of a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman. A letter from Labour MSP George Foulkes explaining how he has repeatedly called on Kenny MacAskill to break the law by publishing Megrahi's medical records can also be read there.]
Yet 12 months later we have numerous "cancer experts" saying "I told you so" or "I was always unwilling to give a three month prognosis". Truly, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
So how accurate have these "experts" been up till now? Since 1993 24 prisoners in Scotland have been granted compassionate release on the basis that they only had three months to live. However, not a single one has died on the day when the three-month deadline was reached.
Seven prisoners (27 per cent) survived for more than three months. Seven died within days of release and one died in custody. If the three months were meant to be spent preparing for death, these latter prisoners were woefully short-changed by the experts who gave them a terminal prognosis. It also suggests that estimating time of death is at best a guess.
This reality is recognised within the US judicial system. There Megrahi would have been held in a federal penitentiary. Under the federal compassionate release scheme he would be entitled to release if he had a year left to live. However, the federal system also allows for release for terminal illnesses that do not "lend themselves to a precise prediction of life expectancy".
Strangely, this detail seems to have escaped the attention of those US senators who believe a prisoner failing to die as predicted represents a failure of the Scottish medical establishment.
Robert Menzies
[The above is the text of a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman. A letter from Labour MSP George Foulkes explaining how he has repeatedly called on Kenny MacAskill to break the law by publishing Megrahi's medical records can also be read there.]
Call to quiz US firms over Libya
[This is the headline over a report on the Big On Glasgow website. It reads as follows:]
The US senator locked in a row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber has been told to question American firms’ involvement in lobbying with Libya.
Senator Robert Menendez previously tried to link BP with the Scottish Government’s decision to release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The oil giant is a member of the Libyan British Business Council (LBBC). The accusation that it affected the release has already prompted an angry rebuttal from First Minister Alex Salmond.
SNP backbencher Christine Grahame has now written to the senator attempting to turn the tables by pointing out that the US firm Exxon Mobil is also a member.
She said: “If Senator Menendez and his colleagues are so concerned that business interests may have lobbied the UK Government they should start by asking their own American businesses.
“Exxon Mobil is the largest oil company in the LBBC and is on its governing council.
“If Senator Menendez wants to find out what the LBBC wanted and if they lobbied the UK Government, the senator should start by questioning Exxon Mobil.”
Last week Senator Menendez issued a plea for “whistleblowers” to come forward as part of his own attempts to investigate the circumstances surrounding Megrahi’s release.
In a television appearance, he cited a letter from Conservative peer Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the LBBC, to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
But a reply from Mr MacAskill stated that political considerations would play no part in considering Megrahi’s release.
[A similar report appears in today's edition of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
The US senator locked in a row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber has been told to question American firms’ involvement in lobbying with Libya.
Senator Robert Menendez previously tried to link BP with the Scottish Government’s decision to release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The oil giant is a member of the Libyan British Business Council (LBBC). The accusation that it affected the release has already prompted an angry rebuttal from First Minister Alex Salmond.
SNP backbencher Christine Grahame has now written to the senator attempting to turn the tables by pointing out that the US firm Exxon Mobil is also a member.
She said: “If Senator Menendez and his colleagues are so concerned that business interests may have lobbied the UK Government they should start by asking their own American businesses.
“Exxon Mobil is the largest oil company in the LBBC and is on its governing council.
“If Senator Menendez wants to find out what the LBBC wanted and if they lobbied the UK Government, the senator should start by questioning Exxon Mobil.”
Last week Senator Menendez issued a plea for “whistleblowers” to come forward as part of his own attempts to investigate the circumstances surrounding Megrahi’s release.
In a television appearance, he cited a letter from Conservative peer Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the LBBC, to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
But a reply from Mr MacAskill stated that political considerations would play no part in considering Megrahi’s release.
[A similar report appears in today's edition of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
The plane truth
[This is the headline over a review of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business on the Broadway Baby website. It reads in part:]
It’s strange to be reviewing this at all. Written and performed by David Benson it’s delivered in the form of a lecture by Jim Swire, the father of Flora Swire, one of 270 people murdered on December 21st 1988 when the Jumbo Jet they were in was blown out of the skies by a bomb above the Scottish town of Lockerbie. It’s hard to review because proceedings are conducted in such a matter of fact manner, and the material, of course, all real, that I wonder if this counts as a play or entertainment at all. Not that this diminishes its power in any way.
Swire/Benson begins by showing us how to construct a bomb similar to the one which blew Pan Am 103 from the skies. There is no emotion in his voice, and he merely explains how easy it is. Thence he reveals that the intelligence services had been warned that just such a bomb might be used by terrorists groups, and the fact it wasn’t detected is just the first disturbing evidence that politics, not justice, was allowed to dictate the subsequent events and show trials that followed.
Jim Swire has never been satisfied with any of the investigations that followed his daughter’s death. He shows, with the aid of projector and other audio visual aids, how the obvious suspects were Iranian terrorists. The attention of the investigators’ then became inexplicably turned towards Libya, and as we all know only one man, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. All the evidence as presented here by Swire points to the fact this was a gross miscarriage of justice, and that the real bombers or bombers has never been caught.
There’s a lot to take in here, and midst the minutiae of evidence and the weight of conspiracy, the moments that really stand out for me, and make it more a play then a lecture, are the simple human insights. Flora was saving the news that she had been accepted for her research degree for Christmas Day. Swire’s wife envies her husband his anger as an outlet. The tale of the jobsworth in Lockerbie who brusquely told Swire he “shouldn’t be in here” as he tried to say goodbye to his daughter as she lay mutilated in the makeshift mortuary in the ice rink. Perhaps them most harrowing moment of all is the playing of the last moments of the flight as taken from the black box flight recorder. The drowsy hum of the engine, the small “pop”, the rushing of air into the cabin, the screams….. and then the continuing screams midst a horrible rushing sound. (...)
Benson’s performance is truly remarkable. He rarely becomes emotional in the part, so that when he does – usually when remembering his darling girl, it is all the more powerful. Even his anger is kept under wraps most of the time. This would sit well with the real Jim Swire, who I have often seen on TV still campaigning. If the piece has a weakness it is that the labyrinthine machinations of the worldwide politics that lead to the covering up of the truth are difficult to totally keep hold of, even with the visual aids.
Jim Swire is now part of the campaign to prove Al Megrahi was innocent, and through Benson asks us to get involved. Of course this is partly to prove that the real killers are still at large, but the fact that he can care so passionately about justice for a man he has never met is reason to smile and have hope for us all as a race. There are truly good people in the world, and we have to hang on to that if the bastards who calmly planted a deadly suitcase in the cargo hold of that plane are not to win.
Whoever they were.
[The Guardian's review can be read here and a long review article on the BBC News website can be read here.
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business can be seen at the Gilded Balloon Teviot at 14.30 until 30 August (not 18th August).]
It’s strange to be reviewing this at all. Written and performed by David Benson it’s delivered in the form of a lecture by Jim Swire, the father of Flora Swire, one of 270 people murdered on December 21st 1988 when the Jumbo Jet they were in was blown out of the skies by a bomb above the Scottish town of Lockerbie. It’s hard to review because proceedings are conducted in such a matter of fact manner, and the material, of course, all real, that I wonder if this counts as a play or entertainment at all. Not that this diminishes its power in any way.
Swire/Benson begins by showing us how to construct a bomb similar to the one which blew Pan Am 103 from the skies. There is no emotion in his voice, and he merely explains how easy it is. Thence he reveals that the intelligence services had been warned that just such a bomb might be used by terrorists groups, and the fact it wasn’t detected is just the first disturbing evidence that politics, not justice, was allowed to dictate the subsequent events and show trials that followed.
Jim Swire has never been satisfied with any of the investigations that followed his daughter’s death. He shows, with the aid of projector and other audio visual aids, how the obvious suspects were Iranian terrorists. The attention of the investigators’ then became inexplicably turned towards Libya, and as we all know only one man, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. All the evidence as presented here by Swire points to the fact this was a gross miscarriage of justice, and that the real bombers or bombers has never been caught.
There’s a lot to take in here, and midst the minutiae of evidence and the weight of conspiracy, the moments that really stand out for me, and make it more a play then a lecture, are the simple human insights. Flora was saving the news that she had been accepted for her research degree for Christmas Day. Swire’s wife envies her husband his anger as an outlet. The tale of the jobsworth in Lockerbie who brusquely told Swire he “shouldn’t be in here” as he tried to say goodbye to his daughter as she lay mutilated in the makeshift mortuary in the ice rink. Perhaps them most harrowing moment of all is the playing of the last moments of the flight as taken from the black box flight recorder. The drowsy hum of the engine, the small “pop”, the rushing of air into the cabin, the screams….. and then the continuing screams midst a horrible rushing sound. (...)
Benson’s performance is truly remarkable. He rarely becomes emotional in the part, so that when he does – usually when remembering his darling girl, it is all the more powerful. Even his anger is kept under wraps most of the time. This would sit well with the real Jim Swire, who I have often seen on TV still campaigning. If the piece has a weakness it is that the labyrinthine machinations of the worldwide politics that lead to the covering up of the truth are difficult to totally keep hold of, even with the visual aids.
Jim Swire is now part of the campaign to prove Al Megrahi was innocent, and through Benson asks us to get involved. Of course this is partly to prove that the real killers are still at large, but the fact that he can care so passionately about justice for a man he has never met is reason to smile and have hope for us all as a race. There are truly good people in the world, and we have to hang on to that if the bastards who calmly planted a deadly suitcase in the cargo hold of that plane are not to win.
Whoever they were.
[The Guardian's review can be read here and a long review article on the BBC News website can be read here.
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business can be seen at the Gilded Balloon Teviot at 14.30 until 30 August (not 18th August).]
A tale of three atrocities
Charles, a frequent commentator on this blog, has published his thesis on responsibility for the downing of Pan Am 103 here. It is subtitled "A different view on Lockerbie".
Megrahi doubts
"The suspicion that Kenny MacAskill was pulling out all the stops to prevent a Megrahi appeal - and the resultant almost certain embarrassment for the justice minister, Scottish justice and the country - grows stronger with every new revelation."
From a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman.
"[The writers of two earlier letters] continue zealously to follow the tradition established by all previous opponents of Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s intervention in the Megrahi affair: that is, to studiously ignore the monstrous pachyderm in the living room – the manifestly unjust nature of the original verdict." (...)
"I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church but I found it depressing to read the bitter letters from Tom Gallagher and Alistair McBay attacking Cardinal Keith O’Brien. Looking at the bigger picture, there is growing opinion in Scotland and elsewhere that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s conviction of a most heinous crime is, at the very least, unsafe.
"That opinion is shared by many of the bereaved families, and was articulated by Dr Jim Swire in his uplifting and inspirational letter (August 10) in which he wrote: 'There was evidence at Camp Zeist that made me and many others doubt Megrahi’s guilt. Much more has accumulated since, and the total of it now strains credulity beyond breaking point.'" (...)
From two letters in today's edition of The Herald.
It is precisely this attitude, which is prevalent in Scotland (and even more so in the rest of the world, with the exception of the United States of America) that renders it imperative to restore the shattered reputation of Scottish criminal justice by establishing an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case. The concerns of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and others cannot simply be swept under the carpet. Lockerbie will not just go away. However unpalatable it may be to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, the Scottish Government must now act. The interests of justice -- including the restoration of confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system -- demand it.
From a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman.
"[The writers of two earlier letters] continue zealously to follow the tradition established by all previous opponents of Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s intervention in the Megrahi affair: that is, to studiously ignore the monstrous pachyderm in the living room – the manifestly unjust nature of the original verdict." (...)
"I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church but I found it depressing to read the bitter letters from Tom Gallagher and Alistair McBay attacking Cardinal Keith O’Brien. Looking at the bigger picture, there is growing opinion in Scotland and elsewhere that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s conviction of a most heinous crime is, at the very least, unsafe.
"That opinion is shared by many of the bereaved families, and was articulated by Dr Jim Swire in his uplifting and inspirational letter (August 10) in which he wrote: 'There was evidence at Camp Zeist that made me and many others doubt Megrahi’s guilt. Much more has accumulated since, and the total of it now strains credulity beyond breaking point.'" (...)
From two letters in today's edition of The Herald.
It is precisely this attitude, which is prevalent in Scotland (and even more so in the rest of the world, with the exception of the United States of America) that renders it imperative to restore the shattered reputation of Scottish criminal justice by establishing an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case. The concerns of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and others cannot simply be swept under the carpet. Lockerbie will not just go away. However unpalatable it may be to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, the Scottish Government must now act. The interests of justice -- including the restoration of confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system -- demand it.
Monday, 16 August 2010
US Senator seeks Lockerbie 'whistleblowers'
[It appears that the stories circulating on Sunday were accurate. Senator Menendez is calling upon Scottish civil servants and professionals to break their employment contracts and, in some cases, the law of the land by supplying information to him. A report by the news agency Agence France Presse reads in part:]
A US senator investigating the Lockerbie bomber's release called Monday for "whistleblowers" with behind-the-scenes knowledge of the controversy to share their secrets with his probe.
"All correspondence will remain confidential and identities will not be disclosed unless permission is granted," Democratic Senator Robert Menendez promised potential sources nearly one year after the bomber was freed.
The lawmaker's office said it was "interested in hearing from whistleblowers" with information on a wide range of issues tied to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi in August 2009 on compassionate grounds.
Menendez sought details of: Talks between oil giant BP and Libya from 2003 onward; discussions between Britain's government and BP regarding oil and gas exploration in Libya from 2003 onward; negotiations between Britain and Libya from 2003 onward; and Megrahi's health before and after his release.
Menendez also sought information about the British, Libyan, and Scottish governments' "perspective" on Megrahi's release; the Scottish medical community's view of Megrahi's diagnosis; and the bomber's legal representation throughout the process. (...)
Menendez planned to chair a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter "in the coming weeks" after an earlier session was canceled due to lack of cooperation from the governments involved as well as BP.
[The whistleblowing story now also appears on the US Congress website The Hill.
The United Kingdom Government should immediately, and in the strongest possible terms, require the US State Department, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to disown and deplore this attempt by a US legislator to induce breaches of the law of a friendly foreign country. And the Scottish Government (which has no foreign relations powers but which has recently been in correspondence with Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) should immediately write to Senator Kerry demanding that he issue a statement dissociating the Committee from Senator Menendez's outrageous attempt to suborn Scottish public servants.]
A US senator investigating the Lockerbie bomber's release called Monday for "whistleblowers" with behind-the-scenes knowledge of the controversy to share their secrets with his probe.
"All correspondence will remain confidential and identities will not be disclosed unless permission is granted," Democratic Senator Robert Menendez promised potential sources nearly one year after the bomber was freed.
The lawmaker's office said it was "interested in hearing from whistleblowers" with information on a wide range of issues tied to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi in August 2009 on compassionate grounds.
Menendez sought details of: Talks between oil giant BP and Libya from 2003 onward; discussions between Britain's government and BP regarding oil and gas exploration in Libya from 2003 onward; negotiations between Britain and Libya from 2003 onward; and Megrahi's health before and after his release.
Menendez also sought information about the British, Libyan, and Scottish governments' "perspective" on Megrahi's release; the Scottish medical community's view of Megrahi's diagnosis; and the bomber's legal representation throughout the process. (...)
Menendez planned to chair a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter "in the coming weeks" after an earlier session was canceled due to lack of cooperation from the governments involved as well as BP.
[The whistleblowing story now also appears on the US Congress website The Hill.
The United Kingdom Government should immediately, and in the strongest possible terms, require the US State Department, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to disown and deplore this attempt by a US legislator to induce breaches of the law of a friendly foreign country. And the Scottish Government (which has no foreign relations powers but which has recently been in correspondence with Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) should immediately write to Senator Kerry demanding that he issue a statement dissociating the Committee from Senator Menendez's outrageous attempt to suborn Scottish public servants.]
Lockerbie: grandstanding and hypocrisy in the Senate
[This is the heading over an article by English lawyer Michael House in The Polemecist section of the Weekly Hubris website. It reads in part:]
It appears that there are elections to the US Senate coming up.
New England senators are working themselves up into a lather over the release of “Lockerbie bomber” Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Apparently, his release by the Scottish authorities was only acceptable if he died within three months of his release. But the treacherous bastard is still alive, 12 months later. Now, the grandstanding senators are trying to link his release with BP’s attempts to penetrate the Libyan oil market. Not a scrap of evidence to support the hypothesis, but that will not stop vote-grubbing senators trying to link the two major villains on the planet today—British Petroleum and al-Megrahi. Happily, their impertinent demands that British politicians appear before their kangaroo-court committee have been rebuffed.
The senators might like to consider the following facts:
Mr. al-Megrahi is almost certainly innocent, and was convicted on the tainted and confused evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper who was paid at least 2 million dollars for his evidence. Dr. Jim Swire, who lost a daughter at Lockerbie and has relentlessly pursued the truth ever since, is convinced al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. (...)
Part of the deal for al-Megrahi’s release was for his appeal to be abandoned. This was essential for the Scots, because it was highly likely that his conviction would have been quashed, causing enormous embarrassment to the Scottish judicial system.
The Montreal convention of 1971, created under the UN-linked International Civil Aviation Organization, stated that the suspects in the bombing of flight PA 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, should be tried in Libya. The US used its muscle to orchestrate UN sanctions to force the surrender of the suspects to a British or American court. The result of those sanctions was the death of thousands of Libyans suffering from serious medical conditions who could not be air-lifted abroad. Over 700 Libyans died in ambulances en route to neighbouring countries. It is estimated that 1,135 stillbirths and 514 maternal deaths occurred as a result of shortages of medicines, vaccines and serums. The figures are confirmed in a UN report of 1998. An estimated 16,000 Libyan deaths resulted from the US’s bully-boy tactics. All evidence suggesting that the bombers were Syrians was ignored.
Even if al-Megrahi was guilty, where is the moral distinction between his alleged act and the actions of the USAF in trying to murder Gaddafi in a bombing raid on Tripoli that killed 59 people in 1986, or of the captain of the USS Vincennes, who shot down Iran Air flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children?
Senators in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
It appears that there are elections to the US Senate coming up.
New England senators are working themselves up into a lather over the release of “Lockerbie bomber” Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Apparently, his release by the Scottish authorities was only acceptable if he died within three months of his release. But the treacherous bastard is still alive, 12 months later. Now, the grandstanding senators are trying to link his release with BP’s attempts to penetrate the Libyan oil market. Not a scrap of evidence to support the hypothesis, but that will not stop vote-grubbing senators trying to link the two major villains on the planet today—British Petroleum and al-Megrahi. Happily, their impertinent demands that British politicians appear before their kangaroo-court committee have been rebuffed.
The senators might like to consider the following facts:
Mr. al-Megrahi is almost certainly innocent, and was convicted on the tainted and confused evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper who was paid at least 2 million dollars for his evidence. Dr. Jim Swire, who lost a daughter at Lockerbie and has relentlessly pursued the truth ever since, is convinced al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. (...)
Part of the deal for al-Megrahi’s release was for his appeal to be abandoned. This was essential for the Scots, because it was highly likely that his conviction would have been quashed, causing enormous embarrassment to the Scottish judicial system.
The Montreal convention of 1971, created under the UN-linked International Civil Aviation Organization, stated that the suspects in the bombing of flight PA 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, should be tried in Libya. The US used its muscle to orchestrate UN sanctions to force the surrender of the suspects to a British or American court. The result of those sanctions was the death of thousands of Libyans suffering from serious medical conditions who could not be air-lifted abroad. Over 700 Libyans died in ambulances en route to neighbouring countries. It is estimated that 1,135 stillbirths and 514 maternal deaths occurred as a result of shortages of medicines, vaccines and serums. The figures are confirmed in a UN report of 1998. An estimated 16,000 Libyan deaths resulted from the US’s bully-boy tactics. All evidence suggesting that the bombers were Syrians was ignored.
Even if al-Megrahi was guilty, where is the moral distinction between his alleged act and the actions of the USAF in trying to murder Gaddafi in a bombing raid on Tripoli that killed 59 people in 1986, or of the captain of the USS Vincennes, who shot down Iran Air flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children?
Senators in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Pilger adds name to call for Pan Am 103 inquiry
[This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Renowned investigative journalist John Pilger has added his name to a petition presently before the United Nations for a wide ranging inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath.
Pilger, who has earned and reinforced a reputation for campaigning journalism over five decades, is the latest to add his name to a list of signatories that already includes Archbiashop Desmond Tutu, Professor Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell, Professor Robert Black QC, Dr Jim Swire, Sir Teddy Taylor and Iain Mckie, amongst others.
Last week, UK print and broadcast media were requested en masse to endorse the petition, an invitation previously extended both to First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, as well as the four United States Senators who had called for an investigation focusing on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi.
"The petition presently before the UN has no agenda other than to seek the truth into the whole circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and the debacle that has followed, and continues to this day," said The Firm's Editor, Steven Raeburn, one of the signatories to the petition.
"The list of those requested to and agreeing to back its aims is growing inexorably, and Pilger's reputation in support of truth and justice is peerless. Regardless of one's views on the events surrounding Lockerbie, too many questions do not yet have satisfactory answers, many of which may possibly have been supplied by the Scottish judicial process, had it not been halted.
"An honest and rigourous inquiry into all those events will surely help clear the stain on Scottish justice, and bring some comfort to those bereaved, who have had to suffer years in want of the truth. There is nothing to fear from such an inquiry, unless possibly you believe there is something to hide. The quicker an inquiry is called by those with power to do so, the quicker the answers will be found, and justice served."
[John Pilger has written on the Lockerbie case. Here is an example.]
Renowned investigative journalist John Pilger has added his name to a petition presently before the United Nations for a wide ranging inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath.
Pilger, who has earned and reinforced a reputation for campaigning journalism over five decades, is the latest to add his name to a list of signatories that already includes Archbiashop Desmond Tutu, Professor Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell, Professor Robert Black QC, Dr Jim Swire, Sir Teddy Taylor and Iain Mckie, amongst others.
Last week, UK print and broadcast media were requested en masse to endorse the petition, an invitation previously extended both to First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, as well as the four United States Senators who had called for an investigation focusing on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi.
"The petition presently before the UN has no agenda other than to seek the truth into the whole circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and the debacle that has followed, and continues to this day," said The Firm's Editor, Steven Raeburn, one of the signatories to the petition.
"The list of those requested to and agreeing to back its aims is growing inexorably, and Pilger's reputation in support of truth and justice is peerless. Regardless of one's views on the events surrounding Lockerbie, too many questions do not yet have satisfactory answers, many of which may possibly have been supplied by the Scottish judicial process, had it not been halted.
"An honest and rigourous inquiry into all those events will surely help clear the stain on Scottish justice, and bring some comfort to those bereaved, who have had to suffer years in want of the truth. There is nothing to fear from such an inquiry, unless possibly you believe there is something to hide. The quicker an inquiry is called by those with power to do so, the quicker the answers will be found, and justice served."
[John Pilger has written on the Lockerbie case. Here is an example.]
Lockerbie families call for fresh investigation
I am grateful to a reader of this blog (and a welcome commentator) for drawing my attention to a video on the website of the Daily Record, one of Scotland's largest-circulation and fiercely Labour-supporting tabloids. In it Pam Dix, spokesman for the Lockerbie relatives group UK Families Flight 103 expresses the group's support for a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case.
I am grateful to another reader and welcome commentator for drawing my attention to an article by Joan Burnie headed "We must unlock truth on atrocity" in her Friday Column in the Daily Record on 23 July. The following are excerpts:
There is something distasteful about willing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to die, no matter how evil he may or may not be.
As malignant as the cancer spreading through Megrahi's body is this baying for his corpse, with the bloodlust of a crowd at a public stoning.
It is understandable that the families of the victims want vengeance but let's not pretend that they matter a jot to the real players in all of this.
They are pawns in a game of global politics, duplicity and corporate might.
The main focus of the debate is ludicrous, anyway.
Doctors can't give a survival time in cancer cases. They are not gods.
From the moment of diagnosis, cancer is a waiting game. (...)
In the meantime, the elephant in the room - the real issue of whether Megrahi was even behind the bombing - has been pushed conveniently to one side.
It is barely mentioned and yet it is the most important issue of all.
Do we really want Megrahi to die when he will take the truth to his grave?
On June 28, 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission completed their investigation, having concluded that there was evidence of a potential miscarriage of justice.
It is more than likely that Megrahi was innocent and, as someone who believes that, I am glad he will spend his dying days at home in Libya. (...)
It is a grave pity that, with all the backroom dealing, his appeal didn't go ahead.
And that's the key, because it was never in the interests of the UK or American governments to have the truth outed in a courtroom.
The US government, who now so piously condemn the release of Megrahi, forget their part in covering up the truth, the witnesses paid off, allegedly, with the authority of the FBI. (...)
If the families of the Lockerbie victims matter at all, why haven't their calls for a full public inquiry into the atrocity been answered?
Instead, they have been lied to and their need for answers has been ignored. What a tragedy. What an utter betrayal.
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the bombing of Pan Am 103, claims the families have "faced years of denials and obfuscation".
Jim Swire, whose beautiful young daughter Flora died in the disaster, is convinced the wrong man was jailed.
At the heart of all of this is not that Megrahi should lose his life but that on Wednesday, December 21, 1988, 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing lost theirs.
Their families deserve to know why they died and, for all the millions thrown at them, that is the only compensation that counts.
I am grateful to another reader and welcome commentator for drawing my attention to an article by Joan Burnie headed "We must unlock truth on atrocity" in her Friday Column in the Daily Record on 23 July. The following are excerpts:
There is something distasteful about willing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to die, no matter how evil he may or may not be.
As malignant as the cancer spreading through Megrahi's body is this baying for his corpse, with the bloodlust of a crowd at a public stoning.
It is understandable that the families of the victims want vengeance but let's not pretend that they matter a jot to the real players in all of this.
They are pawns in a game of global politics, duplicity and corporate might.
The main focus of the debate is ludicrous, anyway.
Doctors can't give a survival time in cancer cases. They are not gods.
From the moment of diagnosis, cancer is a waiting game. (...)
In the meantime, the elephant in the room - the real issue of whether Megrahi was even behind the bombing - has been pushed conveniently to one side.
It is barely mentioned and yet it is the most important issue of all.
Do we really want Megrahi to die when he will take the truth to his grave?
On June 28, 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission completed their investigation, having concluded that there was evidence of a potential miscarriage of justice.
It is more than likely that Megrahi was innocent and, as someone who believes that, I am glad he will spend his dying days at home in Libya. (...)
It is a grave pity that, with all the backroom dealing, his appeal didn't go ahead.
And that's the key, because it was never in the interests of the UK or American governments to have the truth outed in a courtroom.
The US government, who now so piously condemn the release of Megrahi, forget their part in covering up the truth, the witnesses paid off, allegedly, with the authority of the FBI. (...)
If the families of the Lockerbie victims matter at all, why haven't their calls for a full public inquiry into the atrocity been answered?
Instead, they have been lied to and their need for answers has been ignored. What a tragedy. What an utter betrayal.
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the bombing of Pan Am 103, claims the families have "faced years of denials and obfuscation".
Jim Swire, whose beautiful young daughter Flora died in the disaster, is convinced the wrong man was jailed.
At the heart of all of this is not that Megrahi should lose his life but that on Wednesday, December 21, 1988, 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing lost theirs.
Their families deserve to know why they died and, for all the millions thrown at them, that is the only compensation that counts.
Nothing to fear over US call for Megrahi ‘informers’
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Scottish ministers insisted yesterday that they had nothing to fear from a call for “whistleblowers” to reveal fresh evidence about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
American senators are to appeal for doctors, lawyers and others who may have knowledge of events surrounding his release to come forward.
The politicians, who promise they will protect the identities of would-be informers, believe the information should be made public out of “compassion” for the 270 victims of the bombing.
But the extraordinary call, expected later this week, will mark a further deterioration in transatlantic relations in the run-up to the first anniversary of the release on Friday of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. (...)
A spokesman for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill insisted that ministers were “not concerned” about the call for whistleblowers.
He said that any extra evidence that emerged would not contradict the Scottish Government’s version of events, adding: “We are not concerned about this at all.”
He also suggested that although two of the senators involved, including Robert Menendez from New Jersey, are members of the Foreign Relations Committee, which is looking into the issue, they increasingly appear to be acting as individual politicians.
“Senator Menendez appears now to be acting on his own account, rather than on behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee,” the spokesman said.
[The Scotsman today runs three Megrahi-related articles. The first, Doctors cast fresh doubt on case for freeing Megrahi is a rehash of the stories that appeared in the Sunday newspapers yesterday. The second, Senator 'misunderstands' says MacAskill deals with the Justice Department reaction to the whistleblowing call. The third, 'We want the truth: who murdered our families?' deals with the letter to editors sent by the Justice for Megrahi campaign.]
Scottish ministers insisted yesterday that they had nothing to fear from a call for “whistleblowers” to reveal fresh evidence about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
American senators are to appeal for doctors, lawyers and others who may have knowledge of events surrounding his release to come forward.
The politicians, who promise they will protect the identities of would-be informers, believe the information should be made public out of “compassion” for the 270 victims of the bombing.
But the extraordinary call, expected later this week, will mark a further deterioration in transatlantic relations in the run-up to the first anniversary of the release on Friday of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. (...)
A spokesman for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill insisted that ministers were “not concerned” about the call for whistleblowers.
He said that any extra evidence that emerged would not contradict the Scottish Government’s version of events, adding: “We are not concerned about this at all.”
He also suggested that although two of the senators involved, including Robert Menendez from New Jersey, are members of the Foreign Relations Committee, which is looking into the issue, they increasingly appear to be acting as individual politicians.
“Senator Menendez appears now to be acting on his own account, rather than on behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee,” the spokesman said.
[The Scotsman today runs three Megrahi-related articles. The first, Doctors cast fresh doubt on case for freeing Megrahi is a rehash of the stories that appeared in the Sunday newspapers yesterday. The second, Senator 'misunderstands' says MacAskill deals with the Justice Department reaction to the whistleblowing call. The third, 'We want the truth: who murdered our families?' deals with the letter to editors sent by the Justice for Megrahi campaign.]
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Ex-BP boss Lord Browne did not discuss Lockerbie bomber release
[This is the headline over a report just published on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
Former BP chief executive Lord Browne has said he never discussed the release of the Lockerbie bomber when he held talks with Libya's leader.
Lord Browne, whose 12 years in charge at BP ended in 2007, said he had met Colonel Gaddafi twice to discuss gas and oil exploration in Libya.
But he told an audience at the Edinburgh International Book Festival he had not lobbied the UK government for the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in order to help BP land a deal. (...)
Lord Browne said that the inclusion of Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and a BP deal to look for oil in the North African country happened after he left the company. (...) [Note by RB: The "deal in the desert" was signed after Lord Browne's departure from BP, but the UK-Libya negotiations that culminated in it commenced in 2003.]
Lord Browne told the Edinburgh audience: "I went to see Gaddafi twice to see if I could negotiate entry to Libya.
"It did not happen but I think I got quite a way forward."
When asked if the release of Megrahi was ever discussed, he said: "Certainly not."
Former BP chief executive Lord Browne has said he never discussed the release of the Lockerbie bomber when he held talks with Libya's leader.
Lord Browne, whose 12 years in charge at BP ended in 2007, said he had met Colonel Gaddafi twice to discuss gas and oil exploration in Libya.
But he told an audience at the Edinburgh International Book Festival he had not lobbied the UK government for the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in order to help BP land a deal. (...)
Lord Browne said that the inclusion of Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and a BP deal to look for oil in the North African country happened after he left the company. (...) [Note by RB: The "deal in the desert" was signed after Lord Browne's departure from BP, but the UK-Libya negotiations that culminated in it commenced in 2003.]
Lord Browne told the Edinburgh audience: "I went to see Gaddafi twice to see if I could negotiate entry to Libya.
"It did not happen but I think I got quite a way forward."
When asked if the release of Megrahi was ever discussed, he said: "Certainly not."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)