[This is the headline over the longer article in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times mentioned in the preceding post. The article, by the paper's deputy editor Herman Grech, reads as follows:]
Gauci’s evidence was ‘clearly unreliable’
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and a victim’s father have accused a Maltese witness at the centre of the probe of “betraying a fellow human being for money”.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am aircraft, spoke exclusively to The Sunday Times just days after meeting Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who was convicted of killing 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was controversially released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
When asked whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.
Twenty-two years on from the bombing, Dr Swire remains convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.
“Everything I have heard since has reinforced that view, particularly the Heathrow break-in, knowledge of which was denied to the court and of course hidden from us, until after the verdict had been reached.”
Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.
Malta was implicated in the case because the prosecution said Mr Al-Megrahi had originally placed the unaccompanied bomb on an Air Malta flight.
It was argued the suitcase containing the bomb was then transferred at Frankfurt airport onto a feeder flight to London and then at Heathrow onto the Pan Am plane flight, PA103, that later exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland 38 minutes after take-off.
Mr Al-Megrahi was said to be a secret service agent for the Libyan government stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab Airlines.
Dr Swire said that evidence from a man who worked at a cafe at the former Luqa airport had claimed that a Scottish detective had suggested he might “refresh his memory” by remembering that if he produced evidence against the Libyan he would be likely to get enough money to allow him to travel abroad.
Both Mr Al-Megrahi and Dr Swire believe there was political interference in the case.
“If there really was direct interference either by those involved in the investigation, or by other arms of intelligence communities to achieve a politically ‘desirable’ verdict, the host nations would hardly welcome an exposure of their collusion to pervert the course of justice, even after 21 years,” Dr Swire said.
Some arguments against the conviction
• Air Malta was able to prove that all 55 bags loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers.
• Claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow fits perfectly with the theory that a Syrian group was behind the bomb which downed the aircraft. Their bombs were known to be stable at ground level, but if put into an aircraft they would always explode between 35 and 40 minutes after take-off, thanks to an internal timer only being triggered by a drop in air pressure. The Lockerbie aircraft flew for 38 minutes before exploding.
• An FBI agent held up in front of US public television cameras a photograph of a timer circuit board through which he claimed to have linked the crime to Libya. Critics said the photograph was of a circuit board which had not been involved in proximity to any explosion. Court evidence later confirmed that the CIA had already been in possession of timers containing such circuit boards.
• A book had claimed that the Syria-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) had received $10 million or so from Iran immediately after Lockerbie. The PFLP-GC appears to have acted as a mercenary, or executive in carrying out the wishes of the Iranian Ayatollahs in revenge for the erroneous US downing of an Iranian aircraft.
• There are political reasons why the US had wanted to take the heat off Iran and Syria at the time. The return of US hostages held by Iranian backed groups was still on the agenda at the time.
• A US intelligence team who had been investigating the hostage dispositions in Lebanon were among those on the doomed PA103. Their leader’s bag had been cut open by hand and some of its contents removed before it was returned to the crash site for the Scottish police to find. This interference with the evidence chain was known to the court which placed no emphasis on it.
• The court never ordered the production of the diaries pertaining to a detective involved in the complex forensic investigation into the bombing even though they knew of their existence. These exposed serious backhand dealings and showed that the Maltese witness was interested in the awards being offered by the US ‘Rewards for Justice’ programme provided he gave evidence leading to Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction.
[A second article in the same newspaper headlined ‘Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi remains a sick man’ reads as follows:]
Dr Swire met with Mr Al-Megrahi in Tripoli following a request by the Libyan man himself.
It was the first time the Scottish doctor has met Mr Al-Megrahi since the Libyan’s release. The two had previously met when the convicted bomber was in custody. Mr Al-Megrahi has kept a very low profile since his release, amid media speculation of his health and whereabouts.
Dr Swire was not expansive about the contents of his one-hour conversation with Mr Al-Megrahi, which he considers confidential, but was quick to quash media claims that the Libyan - who was given three months to live when released from a Scottish prison in August 2009 – was not really a dying man.
“Abdelbaset remains a sick man but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family, especially his wife Aisha, the community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving. This is a message of great cheer for all of us men, many of whom will sooner or later be victims of prostate cancer.”
Dr Swire said he decided to make the trip to Tripoli in solidarity with the man who still stands accused in the eyes of the law of killing the Scotsman’s daughter.
“We met as brother members of the human race and seekers of a common goal: the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice.
“Abdelbaset does not want any further dealings with the media, believing he can do no more now that his appeal has been withdrawn.”
Mr Al-Megrahi maintained his innocence and his wish to see the verdict against him overturned, Dr Swire told The Sunday Times.
“That task now falls upon Scotland, and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.”
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Lockerbie victim's dad visits man convicted
[This is the headline over a Deutsche Presse-Agentur news agency report on the website of The Seattle Times. It reads in part:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing "remains a sick man" but was in better shape than expected when the father of one of the victims visited him in Tripoli, Libya.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, was on the Pan Am airliner when it was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, held a one-hour meeting with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in Libya on Tuesday, The Sunday Times of Malta reported.
It was the first time that the Scottish doctor had met al-Megrahi since his controversial release from a Scottish prison in August 2009. (...)
Al-Megrahi has kept a low profile since his release, amid media speculation about his health and whereabouts.
Swire, who has always maintained the Libyan was wrongly convicted of the crime that killed 270 people, was quick to quash media claims that the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" was not really a dying man.
"Abdel Baset remains a sick man, but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family and community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving," Swire, 74, told Malta's main newspaper.
He said he decided to visit Tripoli in solidarity with the Libyan, who has maintained his innocence and wants the verdict against him overturned.
[There is a brief report on the website of The Sunday Times of Malta. A longer report will probably appear there later today. The brief report, headlined "Lockerbie bomber claims he was 'betrayed' by Maltese man" reads in part:]
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and controversially released last year, is claiming that a Maltese witness at his trial “betrayed a fellow human being for money”.
The claim was made to Jim Swire, a Scottish doctor who last week visited Al Megrahi in Tripoli. Dr Swire lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. (...)
The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
Asked by The Sunday Times whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation.
Dr Swire said he was convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.
Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing "remains a sick man" but was in better shape than expected when the father of one of the victims visited him in Tripoli, Libya.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, was on the Pan Am airliner when it was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, held a one-hour meeting with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in Libya on Tuesday, The Sunday Times of Malta reported.
It was the first time that the Scottish doctor had met al-Megrahi since his controversial release from a Scottish prison in August 2009. (...)
Al-Megrahi has kept a low profile since his release, amid media speculation about his health and whereabouts.
Swire, who has always maintained the Libyan was wrongly convicted of the crime that killed 270 people, was quick to quash media claims that the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" was not really a dying man.
"Abdel Baset remains a sick man, but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family and community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving," Swire, 74, told Malta's main newspaper.
He said he decided to visit Tripoli in solidarity with the Libyan, who has maintained his innocence and wants the verdict against him overturned.
[There is a brief report on the website of The Sunday Times of Malta. A longer report will probably appear there later today. The brief report, headlined "Lockerbie bomber claims he was 'betrayed' by Maltese man" reads in part:]
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and controversially released last year, is claiming that a Maltese witness at his trial “betrayed a fellow human being for money”.
The claim was made to Jim Swire, a Scottish doctor who last week visited Al Megrahi in Tripoli. Dr Swire lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. (...)
The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
Asked by The Sunday Times whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation.
Dr Swire said he was convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.
Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.
Friday, 17 September 2010
BBC Radio Four's The Report on Megrahi case
The programme was broadcast yesterday evening. It can be listened to here. Perhaps inevitably, there was far too much on the release issue. But some of the concerns about the conviction were given an airing. Regrettably, Frank Duggan, president of the US relatives group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc was allowed to assert unchallenged that eight Scottish judges had accepted the evidence at the trial as justifying Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction. Mr Duggan well knows (as do the BBC programme makers, because I told them) the true position is as follows:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
Thursday, 16 September 2010
US team to discuss Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report just issued by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]
US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.
Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)
The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.
"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."
The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]
Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.
US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.
[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]
US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.
Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)
The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.
"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."
The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]
Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.
US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.
[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]
MacAskill set to face Lockerbie FBI chief
This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. Had it been true, it would have been quite a story. The Director of the FBI Robert S Mueller III has form in relation to Lockerbie: see eg here and here and here and here.
What in fact is happening is that Mr MacAskill is to be the opening speaker at a conference in October at which, two days later, an address is to be given by Kathryn Turman, director of victim services at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who played an important role making the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist accessible to relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103.
This is yet another example of the dreadful decline in The Scotsman's standards. As one of the readers who commented on the story says:
"I believe the Scotsman has won the 'Most misleading headline' prize for the 30th month in a row. Just when you think the Scotsman can't sink any lower; it is a dreadful shame that a mighty newspaper has been dragged into the gutter."
What in fact is happening is that Mr MacAskill is to be the opening speaker at a conference in October at which, two days later, an address is to be given by Kathryn Turman, director of victim services at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who played an important role making the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist accessible to relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103.
This is yet another example of the dreadful decline in The Scotsman's standards. As one of the readers who commented on the story says:
"I believe the Scotsman has won the 'Most misleading headline' prize for the 30th month in a row. Just when you think the Scotsman can't sink any lower; it is a dreadful shame that a mighty newspaper has been dragged into the gutter."
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Lord MacLean on Lockerbie
[Accompanying its article on the report of the inquiry into the murder of Loyalist Billy Wright by Irish National Liberation Army prisoners at the Maze Prison in 1997, The Scotsman runs a brief profile of the retired judge, Lord MacLean, who chaired the inquiry. It reads in part:]
The retired Scottish judge who chaired the inquiry was one of the judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing.
Lord MacLean sat with Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Abernethy when they found Megrahi guilty of mass murder. [Note by RB: Lord Abernethy was a substitute, who took no part in the decision. He would have had a role to play only if one of the other three died or became incapacitated in the course of the proceedings.]
An Old Fettesian, Lord MacLean, 71, has been a staunch defender of the decision, once saying: "I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made, and the verdicts we reached, were correct."
The retired Scottish judge who chaired the inquiry was one of the judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing.
Lord MacLean sat with Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Abernethy when they found Megrahi guilty of mass murder. [Note by RB: Lord Abernethy was a substitute, who took no part in the decision. He would have had a role to play only if one of the other three died or became incapacitated in the course of the proceedings.]
An Old Fettesian, Lord MacLean, 71, has been a staunch defender of the decision, once saying: "I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made, and the verdicts we reached, were correct."
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Justice officials to meet US senate team over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
Monday, 13 September 2010
First Minister's letter to US Senators
[What follows is the text of the First Minister's most recent letter to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand and Schumer.]
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Sunday, 12 September 2010
The Megrahi effect
The following story in the [Edinburgh] Evening News gives the perfect insight to the tactics opponents of Independence will use. Prospective Labour Councillor Bill Cook, believes the path to defeating the SNP is the 'Megrahi effect'. We released him, we did it for BP oil, on Westminster orders, we've embarrassed the nation, the USA hates us, our name is muck, we pander to terrorists, in short we're utterly useless and sanity will only be restored when Richard Baker goes to Libya, grabs Megrahi by the scruff of his neck and throws him back into his Greenock cell to die of his pretendy cancer.
The 'Megrahi effect' will be dribbled out day-after-day until the poor bastard dies, and other than 'compassion' and 'higher authority' our Scottish Government have run out of excuses. The startling lack of clarity in defending the release or even proffering a nod to the possibility that Megrahi might possibly be a victim of injustice is left ignored and unsaid. Everyone and his dog knows that the pressure on the Scottish Justice System (not for the first time) by Westminster and Washington to achieve a conviction on either of the two Lockerbie accused was immense. It didn't matter which one, as long as the West had a hate figure to blame for the destruction, we could all go back to sleeping soundly in our beds.
The stakes have increased with the senators who are vainly attempting to conflate Megrahi's release with BP winning licenses to drill for oil in Libya. All the while ignoring the fact that US oil giant Occidental have an operation in Libya twenty times the size that of BP's, all the while ignoring that fact that non US citizen employees of Occidental were moved to the Libyan Oil agency when the UN sanctions kicked in, and conveniently moved back to Occidental when they were lifted. The shell companies that Occidental set up in Switzerland surprisingly continued operating in Libya during the sanction years are, guess what, back in Occidental hands. Some might say that the USA oil grab never really ceased during the sanction years. All the while trading in black oil with the man their government are convinced ordered the murder of everyone on board Pan Am 103. (...)
The 'Megrahi Effect', how do we counter it, when our own government doesn't appear to have the balls to consider that something might be wrong with the Scottish Justice system?
[The above is from Newsnet Scotland's re-publication of a post from Mark MacLachlan's blog The Universality of Cheese.]
The 'Megrahi effect' will be dribbled out day-after-day until the poor bastard dies, and other than 'compassion' and 'higher authority' our Scottish Government have run out of excuses. The startling lack of clarity in defending the release or even proffering a nod to the possibility that Megrahi might possibly be a victim of injustice is left ignored and unsaid. Everyone and his dog knows that the pressure on the Scottish Justice System (not for the first time) by Westminster and Washington to achieve a conviction on either of the two Lockerbie accused was immense. It didn't matter which one, as long as the West had a hate figure to blame for the destruction, we could all go back to sleeping soundly in our beds.
The stakes have increased with the senators who are vainly attempting to conflate Megrahi's release with BP winning licenses to drill for oil in Libya. All the while ignoring the fact that US oil giant Occidental have an operation in Libya twenty times the size that of BP's, all the while ignoring that fact that non US citizen employees of Occidental were moved to the Libyan Oil agency when the UN sanctions kicked in, and conveniently moved back to Occidental when they were lifted. The shell companies that Occidental set up in Switzerland surprisingly continued operating in Libya during the sanction years are, guess what, back in Occidental hands. Some might say that the USA oil grab never really ceased during the sanction years. All the while trading in black oil with the man their government are convinced ordered the murder of everyone on board Pan Am 103. (...)
The 'Megrahi Effect', how do we counter it, when our own government doesn't appear to have the balls to consider that something might be wrong with the Scottish Justice system?
[The above is from Newsnet Scotland's re-publication of a post from Mark MacLachlan's blog The Universality of Cheese.]
Alex Salmond accuses US Lockerbie bomber inquiry of lacking credibility
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
A view from Malta
[What follows is an excerpt from Howard Hodgson's column The world around us in today's edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.]
Not content with attempting to make a villain of BP over the Gulf oil spill in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from his own disastrous presidential performance, as I reported in June, Barak Obama has now attempted another spin trick worthy of even the ghastly Tony Blair and his hypocritical and morally bankrupt lieutenant Alistair Campbell.
America’s first mixed race President, when his politically motivated attacks on ‘British’ Petroleum failed to turn the tide of public disapproval of him, decided, instead of listening to the reasons for the disquiet, to launch another smokescreen by questioning whether perhaps BP had influenced the British and Scottish governments into releasing the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
You will recall that on 21 December 1988, Pan Am 103 exploded in mid air over Lockerbie in Scotland killing some 270 people in total, a high percentage of which were US citizens.
Eventually, al-Megrahi was convicted of this atrocity, despite protesting his innocence and with many feeling that the conviction was unsafe due to the amount of conflicting and dubious evidence. He was sentenced to serve life in a Scottish jail.
Then in 2009, he was released on humanitarian grounds due to the fact that Scottish doctors said that he had only a matter of weeks to live given the terminal nature of the cancer he was suffering from.
Many Americans, not least relatives of those slaughtered, were appalled – a feeling that became more intense when al-Megrahi was still alive a year later. This was not always an emotion shared by relatives of the British victims, some of whom seemed to have studied the case more closely and were far less convinced of his guilt.
Nevertheless, as al-Megrahi was convicted in a proper court of law, one can perhaps sympathise with those who thought that he should die in prison given the nature of his crime.
Now enter stage left America’s inept President Obama, who suggests that BP had enlisted Gordon Brown’s corrupt British government to offer the release of al-Megrahi as a sweetener to Colonel Gaddafi in order to land a 900-million-dollar deal with Libya.
Therefore, a wicked British government had colluded with a wicked ‘British’ company (38 per cent US owned against 39 per cent UK owned and boasting more US employees than British by the way) to help a wicked murderer be re-united with his wicked boss Colonel Gaddafi. What a very convenient distraction despite the denials of BP and the British, Scottish and Libyan governments. But who knows the truth? Certainly not me.
Not content with attempting to make a villain of BP over the Gulf oil spill in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from his own disastrous presidential performance, as I reported in June, Barak Obama has now attempted another spin trick worthy of even the ghastly Tony Blair and his hypocritical and morally bankrupt lieutenant Alistair Campbell.
America’s first mixed race President, when his politically motivated attacks on ‘British’ Petroleum failed to turn the tide of public disapproval of him, decided, instead of listening to the reasons for the disquiet, to launch another smokescreen by questioning whether perhaps BP had influenced the British and Scottish governments into releasing the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
You will recall that on 21 December 1988, Pan Am 103 exploded in mid air over Lockerbie in Scotland killing some 270 people in total, a high percentage of which were US citizens.
Eventually, al-Megrahi was convicted of this atrocity, despite protesting his innocence and with many feeling that the conviction was unsafe due to the amount of conflicting and dubious evidence. He was sentenced to serve life in a Scottish jail.
Then in 2009, he was released on humanitarian grounds due to the fact that Scottish doctors said that he had only a matter of weeks to live given the terminal nature of the cancer he was suffering from.
Many Americans, not least relatives of those slaughtered, were appalled – a feeling that became more intense when al-Megrahi was still alive a year later. This was not always an emotion shared by relatives of the British victims, some of whom seemed to have studied the case more closely and were far less convinced of his guilt.
Nevertheless, as al-Megrahi was convicted in a proper court of law, one can perhaps sympathise with those who thought that he should die in prison given the nature of his crime.
Now enter stage left America’s inept President Obama, who suggests that BP had enlisted Gordon Brown’s corrupt British government to offer the release of al-Megrahi as a sweetener to Colonel Gaddafi in order to land a 900-million-dollar deal with Libya.
Therefore, a wicked British government had colluded with a wicked ‘British’ company (38 per cent US owned against 39 per cent UK owned and boasting more US employees than British by the way) to help a wicked murderer be re-united with his wicked boss Colonel Gaddafi. What a very convenient distraction despite the denials of BP and the British, Scottish and Libyan governments. But who knows the truth? Certainly not me.
Hague snubs US inquiry into Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It can be accessed online only by subscribers to the newspaper's website. The article reads in part:]
The foreign secretary, William Hague, has banned government officials from co-operating with a US Senate team investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
He has told them not to liaise with the Americans despite a request from the US government for a meeting with investigators when they arrive in Britain this week.
The Foreign Office said the request had been rejected because of concerns about “extraterritoriality” — the convention that members of one government are not accountable to another — and also because the civil service code bars officials from discussing the policies of a previous administration.
While visiting Washington in July, David Cameron joined President Barack Obama in condemning the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a year ago. He asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, to examine whether classified papers on the events leading up to it could be released. (...)
The investigating team of senators’ staff members had hoped that key figures with knowledge of the events leading up to Megrahi’s release would agree to meet them informally to discuss the case.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has turned down their requests to meet his ministers while they are in Britain but has offered to make justice department officials available to discuss the case.
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary responsible for Megrahi’s release, said they were not answerable to America for their decisions.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We have had to decline this request given concerns over extraterritoriality and also on the basis of the civil service code. Officials are accountable through ministers to the British parliament.
“However, we are committed to being constructive. The foreign secretary has written in detail to the Senate committee, setting out the British government’s position, and will write again once the cabinet secretary’s review has concluded.”
[It appears that Richard Baker MSP, Labour Party Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, is going to meet the US Senate staffer. A report from The Press Association news agency contains the following:]
Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker has revealed that he is to meet an official connected to the US Senate inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Baker said he will call for publication of the bomber's medical reports when he meets the representative of US Senator Robert Menendez in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The MSP said: "Kenny MacAskill and other SNP ministers took the decision to release (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al) Megrahi and the medical evidence that they relied upon has not been published.
"I will make it clear that to get to the truth of the matter the Senators should focus their attentions on that advice."
The foreign secretary, William Hague, has banned government officials from co-operating with a US Senate team investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
He has told them not to liaise with the Americans despite a request from the US government for a meeting with investigators when they arrive in Britain this week.
The Foreign Office said the request had been rejected because of concerns about “extraterritoriality” — the convention that members of one government are not accountable to another — and also because the civil service code bars officials from discussing the policies of a previous administration.
While visiting Washington in July, David Cameron joined President Barack Obama in condemning the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a year ago. He asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, to examine whether classified papers on the events leading up to it could be released. (...)
The investigating team of senators’ staff members had hoped that key figures with knowledge of the events leading up to Megrahi’s release would agree to meet them informally to discuss the case.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has turned down their requests to meet his ministers while they are in Britain but has offered to make justice department officials available to discuss the case.
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary responsible for Megrahi’s release, said they were not answerable to America for their decisions.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We have had to decline this request given concerns over extraterritoriality and also on the basis of the civil service code. Officials are accountable through ministers to the British parliament.
“However, we are committed to being constructive. The foreign secretary has written in detail to the Senate committee, setting out the British government’s position, and will write again once the cabinet secretary’s review has concluded.”
[It appears that Richard Baker MSP, Labour Party Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, is going to meet the US Senate staffer. A report from The Press Association news agency contains the following:]
Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker has revealed that he is to meet an official connected to the US Senate inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Baker said he will call for publication of the bomber's medical reports when he meets the representative of US Senator Robert Menendez in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The MSP said: "Kenny MacAskill and other SNP ministers took the decision to release (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al) Megrahi and the medical evidence that they relied upon has not been published.
"I will make it clear that to get to the truth of the matter the Senators should focus their attentions on that advice."
Saturday, 11 September 2010
Radio Four Megrahi programme
The topic for the edition of BBC Radio Four's The Report to be broadcast on Thursday, 16 September at 8pm is "the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi". I agreed to be interviewed for this programme on condition that it concerned itself not merely with the circumstances of his release but also with the circumstances of his conviction. This condition was accepted and I estimate that 95 per cent of the interview of more than one hour that I gave related to the investigation, trial and conviction, rather than the release. But it's all in the editing, of course.
Friday, 10 September 2010
US ambassador hits back at cardinal over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Help wanted for The Lockerbie Divide blog
[Caustic Logic's most recent post on his excellent blog The Lockerbie Divide reads in part:]
[I]t's been almost single-handedly that, over the last eight months, I've made this a valuable destination for those wanting to learn more about the case against Megrahi and Libya. Using tags (the cloud of different sized names and phrases on the right-hand sidebar) and the "search this blog" window, quite a bit of the relevant info, some unavailable anywhere else, can be located all at one site.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of information I haven't addressed, fully or at all. At one point I was creating blank posts to fill in later, but I wasn't getting back to them and stopped. And as things stand, I'll be having considerably less time to work on the site or do much other discussion in the next several months at least. (...)
However, I have noticed many new commentators appearing at The Lockerbie Case and elsewhere, in addition to the numerous informed commentators on both/all sides of the issue. I'd therefore like to repeat an earlier faint request for contributions and help. Are there any specific aspects or points of view that you're excited about or have done some research on? Encyclopedic collections of facts, opinions, theories, all are welcome for submission (especially the first). Ideally, I'm thinking of semi-scholarly, sourced essays, and I probably won't post anything that's patently absurd or useless in my estimate. ANY opposing viewpoint supporting Megrahi's guilt (within social norms, etc) that is submitted will be hosted for argument's sake, but I will own the comments. So keep it sharp, if possible.
If you see an existing post that you can add something to, fill in the gaps often labeled "forthcoming," drop me a line via a comment there or by e-mail. (...) Anyone interested in doing original research for a detailed post can ask me about sharing links and source material they may not have, and for tips on where to look for info.
[I]t's been almost single-handedly that, over the last eight months, I've made this a valuable destination for those wanting to learn more about the case against Megrahi and Libya. Using tags (the cloud of different sized names and phrases on the right-hand sidebar) and the "search this blog" window, quite a bit of the relevant info, some unavailable anywhere else, can be located all at one site.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of information I haven't addressed, fully or at all. At one point I was creating blank posts to fill in later, but I wasn't getting back to them and stopped. And as things stand, I'll be having considerably less time to work on the site or do much other discussion in the next several months at least. (...)
However, I have noticed many new commentators appearing at The Lockerbie Case and elsewhere, in addition to the numerous informed commentators on both/all sides of the issue. I'd therefore like to repeat an earlier faint request for contributions and help. Are there any specific aspects or points of view that you're excited about or have done some research on? Encyclopedic collections of facts, opinions, theories, all are welcome for submission (especially the first). Ideally, I'm thinking of semi-scholarly, sourced essays, and I probably won't post anything that's patently absurd or useless in my estimate. ANY opposing viewpoint supporting Megrahi's guilt (within social norms, etc) that is submitted will be hosted for argument's sake, but I will own the comments. So keep it sharp, if possible.
If you see an existing post that you can add something to, fill in the gaps often labeled "forthcoming," drop me a line via a comment there or by e-mail. (...) Anyone interested in doing original research for a detailed post can ask me about sharing links and source material they may not have, and for tips on where to look for info.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)