[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times, coming one day after the report in The Scotsman and three days after the story appeared on this blog. The Times's report can be accessed -- but only by subscribers -- here. It reads in part:]
A senior British diplomat said that Britain’s business interests in Libya played a vital role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, the latest WikiLeaks files reveal.
Sir Vincent Fean, the British Ambassador to Libya at the time, is quoted in diplomatic cables expressing his relief at the decision by Scottish ministers to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi two years ago on compassionate grounds. (...)
The latest cable released on Wiki-Leaks says: “The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release programme. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi’s request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya.” (...)
At the time, ministers, including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, refused to comment on the decision and insisted that the UK Government had played “no role” in the release.
The dispatch was sent from the US Embassy in Tripoli before the release of al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, in August 2009.
[The headline over The Times's story, and the first sentence quoted above, are disgracefully inaccurate. The British ambassador's reported comment does not, on any interpretation, state or imply that business interests played a part in Abdelbaset Megrahi's compassionate release. It states that, if he had not been released, this could have had disastrous implications for the UK's commercial relations with Libya -- which is a very different thing.]
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Monday, 6 December 2010
WikiLeaks: Al-Megrahi move 'saved UK trade from being cut off at the knees'
This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. (The story, of course, featured on this blog on Saturday morning.) The Scotsman's report reads in part:]
The British ambassador to Libya said the nation's business interests would have been "cut off at the knees" if the Lockerbie bomber was not released, according to a secret US cable published by Wikileaks.
The dispatch - sent from the US embassy in Tripoli before the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in August 2009 - reports the view expressed by the British ambassador at the time, Sir Vincent Fean. He is now the Consul-General in Jerusalem. According to German news magazine Der Spiegel ... Sir Vincent was said to be relieved at news the Scottish Government was intending to release Megrahi as he was suffering from terminal cancer and expected to live less than three months.
The cable said: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release programme. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss'."
The ambassador's comment on "the Swiss" is a reference to Libya's reaction after Swiss police arrested Colonel Gaddafi's son, Hannibal, and his wife, Aline Skaf, on charges of abusing servants in a luxury hotel. Although the couple were quickly bailed and the charges dropped, Libya responded by withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, cutting off oil supplies, denying visas and recalling diplomats.
If accurate, the cable is evidence that the British government was clearly supportive of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi, the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 and the murder of 270 people. At the time, then prime minister Gordon Brown refused to comment on the decision and insisted the UK government had played "no role" in the release. (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said the cable was bound to "re-light the question of whether pressure was put on Scotland by the UK government to get advantages for British governments in Libya".
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are not going to speculate on any specifics."
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer.
The Scottish Parliament justice committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken 'in good faith'."
The British ambassador to Libya said the nation's business interests would have been "cut off at the knees" if the Lockerbie bomber was not released, according to a secret US cable published by Wikileaks.
The dispatch - sent from the US embassy in Tripoli before the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in August 2009 - reports the view expressed by the British ambassador at the time, Sir Vincent Fean. He is now the Consul-General in Jerusalem. According to German news magazine Der Spiegel ... Sir Vincent was said to be relieved at news the Scottish Government was intending to release Megrahi as he was suffering from terminal cancer and expected to live less than three months.
The cable said: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release programme. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss'."
The ambassador's comment on "the Swiss" is a reference to Libya's reaction after Swiss police arrested Colonel Gaddafi's son, Hannibal, and his wife, Aline Skaf, on charges of abusing servants in a luxury hotel. Although the couple were quickly bailed and the charges dropped, Libya responded by withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, cutting off oil supplies, denying visas and recalling diplomats.
If accurate, the cable is evidence that the British government was clearly supportive of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi, the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 and the murder of 270 people. At the time, then prime minister Gordon Brown refused to comment on the decision and insisted the UK government had played "no role" in the release. (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said the cable was bound to "re-light the question of whether pressure was put on Scotland by the UK government to get advantages for British governments in Libya".
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are not going to speculate on any specifics."
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer.
The Scottish Parliament justice committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken 'in good faith'."
Sunday, 5 December 2010
This could be the SNP's legacy
[This is the heading over a recent post on the influential Subrosa blog. It reads in part:]
If the SNP wanted to win next year's election then there must be a proper inquiry into the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Alex Salmond insists he supports the verdict. Why? A powerful committee in the Scottish Parliament has backed a Lockerbie inquiry. Dr Jim Swire has said that, "Without an inquiry the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter." Other very eminent Scottish legals have joined with the call for an inquiry.
This post is nothing to do with the release of Megrahi which I think was taken within the Scottish prisoner guidelines. Most of the UK know there is doubt about the conviction of Megrahi yet the First Minister continues to insist that there is none. The post is about an inquiry into Megrahi's conviction.
Obviously there is something behind the issue for Alex Salmond to continue to insist he believes the verdict and perhaps, for reasons only known to the political establishment, he's troubled it will be discovered during an inquiry, but it's time the SNP bit the bullet and made the decision for the world to know the facts. More and more evidence has appeared over the years yet ,when Megrahi dropped his appeal prior to his release, our political masters seemed to sigh with relief thinking the matter was concluded.
It's not finished by a long chalk if Alex Salmond has the courage to instigate an inquiry. Yes, maybe the SNP Scottish government has shown, like all governments, to have some faults, but the public would forgive them if the truth about the Lockerbie bombing was exposed.
Time to show some true Scottish backbone Alex and call for an inquiry. If nothing else it would ensure the SNP had a good chance to be re-elected in May next year. It could be the SNP's legacy.
If the SNP wanted to win next year's election then there must be a proper inquiry into the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Alex Salmond insists he supports the verdict. Why? A powerful committee in the Scottish Parliament has backed a Lockerbie inquiry. Dr Jim Swire has said that, "Without an inquiry the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter." Other very eminent Scottish legals have joined with the call for an inquiry.
This post is nothing to do with the release of Megrahi which I think was taken within the Scottish prisoner guidelines. Most of the UK know there is doubt about the conviction of Megrahi yet the First Minister continues to insist that there is none. The post is about an inquiry into Megrahi's conviction.
Obviously there is something behind the issue for Alex Salmond to continue to insist he believes the verdict and perhaps, for reasons only known to the political establishment, he's troubled it will be discovered during an inquiry, but it's time the SNP bit the bullet and made the decision for the world to know the facts. More and more evidence has appeared over the years yet ,when Megrahi dropped his appeal prior to his release, our political masters seemed to sigh with relief thinking the matter was concluded.
It's not finished by a long chalk if Alex Salmond has the courage to instigate an inquiry. Yes, maybe the SNP Scottish government has shown, like all governments, to have some faults, but the public would forgive them if the truth about the Lockerbie bombing was exposed.
Time to show some true Scottish backbone Alex and call for an inquiry. If nothing else it would ensure the SNP had a good chance to be re-elected in May next year. It could be the SNP's legacy.
Saturday, 4 December 2010
WikiLeaks: US Libyan ambassador's meeting with Saif
[The following are excerpts from a cable sent by the US embassy in Tripoli on St Andrew's Day 2009, following a meeting between the US ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi on 27 November:]
The ambassador noted that the relationship had seen several advancements and several serious setbacks since Saif's last visit to the United States, including the August 20 hero's welcome accorded to Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by Saif himself. Megrahi's return had severely offended American sensitivities and renewed tensions that set the relationship back. Until that point, there had been significant progress (...)
Saif acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time from the bilateral relationship and recognized that the hero's welcome for Megrahi had set engagement back. He reiterated that he was "back" on the scene and could serve as the "trouble-shooter" for any future problems. He urged the ambassador to contact his office directly in times of crisis. He also promised to resolve the visa issue, stating that he understood the importance of a transparent and reliable system of issuance. In their one-on-one discussion afterwards, the ambassador asked Saif to explain his actions when he accompanied Megrahi back to Tripoli. Saif said he knew what the reaction in the West would be, but that it did not constitute an "official" welcome. He had worked on the release for a long time, he was not a public official, and there were no international media like Al Jazeera present. In addition, Saif claimed that the Libyans would someday find a way to show that Megrahi was innocent. The ambassador reiterated the damage the welcome had done and said no amount of justification could undo that. Saif nodded his understanding.
The ambassador noted that the relationship had seen several advancements and several serious setbacks since Saif's last visit to the United States, including the August 20 hero's welcome accorded to Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by Saif himself. Megrahi's return had severely offended American sensitivities and renewed tensions that set the relationship back. Until that point, there had been significant progress (...)
Saif acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time from the bilateral relationship and recognized that the hero's welcome for Megrahi had set engagement back. He reiterated that he was "back" on the scene and could serve as the "trouble-shooter" for any future problems. He urged the ambassador to contact his office directly in times of crisis. He also promised to resolve the visa issue, stating that he understood the importance of a transparent and reliable system of issuance. In their one-on-one discussion afterwards, the ambassador asked Saif to explain his actions when he accompanied Megrahi back to Tripoli. Saif said he knew what the reaction in the West would be, but that it did not constitute an "official" welcome. He had worked on the release for a long time, he was not a public official, and there were no international media like Al Jazeera present. In addition, Saif claimed that the Libyans would someday find a way to show that Megrahi was innocent. The ambassador reiterated the damage the welcome had done and said no amount of justification could undo that. Saif nodded his understanding.
British ambassador's relief
[The German news magazine Der Spiegel reports as follows on a WikiLeaks cable relating to Megrahi's repatriation:]
Die US-Abgesandten protokollieren Gaddafis Absonderlichkeiten, die Allüren seiner Söhne und die Furcht seiner Berater vor Gaddafis Zorn. Sie verfolgten, wie er aus gekränktem Stolz zwei Schweizer als Geiseln nahm und ihre Regierung erniedrigte, wie er die Kanadier fast auf die Knie zwang, indem er die Verstaatlichung von PetroCanada androhte, und wie er den Briten die Auslieferung des Lockerbie-Bombers Abd al-Bassit al-Mikrahi abpresste. "Der britische Botschafter war erleichtert, dass Mikrahi wahrscheinlich im Rahmen einer humanitären Freilassung nach Libyen zurückkehren könnte. Er bemerkte, dass eine Verweigerung desaströse Folgen für britische Interessen in Libyen nach sich hätte ziehen können. 'Sie hätten uns fertiggemacht, genau wie die Schweizer.'"
[I have been unable to find the cable(s) in question, but here is a rough translation of the Der Spiegel paragraph:]
The US envoys log Gaddafi's peculiarities, the affectations of his sons and the fear of his advisers before Gaddafi's anger. They detailed how he took two Swiss hostages out of injured pride and humbled their government; how the Canadians were almost forced to their knees, when he threatened the nationalization of Petro Canada; and how he forced the British handover of the Lockerbie bomber, Abd al-Bassit al-Megrahi. "The British ambassador was relieved that Megrahi could probably return to Libya under a humanitarian release. He noted that a refusal would have entailed disastrous consequences for British interests in Libya. 'They would have closed us down, just like the Swiss.'"
[The above passage now appears on Der Spiegel's English language website. Their English version reads as follows:]
Americans dispatched to Libya report in great detail on Gadhafi's peculiarities, the airs and graces of his sons and the degree to which his advisers fear his wrath. For example, they closely monitored how wounded pride led him to take two Swiss citizens hostage and humiliate the Swiss government, how he almost forced Canada to its knees by threatening to nationalize the assets of PetroCanada and how he more or less compelled the British to extradite Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, most of them Americans.
As one dispatch explained: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release program. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss.'"
Die US-Abgesandten protokollieren Gaddafis Absonderlichkeiten, die Allüren seiner Söhne und die Furcht seiner Berater vor Gaddafis Zorn. Sie verfolgten, wie er aus gekränktem Stolz zwei Schweizer als Geiseln nahm und ihre Regierung erniedrigte, wie er die Kanadier fast auf die Knie zwang, indem er die Verstaatlichung von PetroCanada androhte, und wie er den Briten die Auslieferung des Lockerbie-Bombers Abd al-Bassit al-Mikrahi abpresste. "Der britische Botschafter war erleichtert, dass Mikrahi wahrscheinlich im Rahmen einer humanitären Freilassung nach Libyen zurückkehren könnte. Er bemerkte, dass eine Verweigerung desaströse Folgen für britische Interessen in Libyen nach sich hätte ziehen können. 'Sie hätten uns fertiggemacht, genau wie die Schweizer.'"
[I have been unable to find the cable(s) in question, but here is a rough translation of the Der Spiegel paragraph:]
The US envoys log Gaddafi's peculiarities, the affectations of his sons and the fear of his advisers before Gaddafi's anger. They detailed how he took two Swiss hostages out of injured pride and humbled their government; how the Canadians were almost forced to their knees, when he threatened the nationalization of Petro Canada; and how he forced the British handover of the Lockerbie bomber, Abd al-Bassit al-Megrahi. "The British ambassador was relieved that Megrahi could probably return to Libya under a humanitarian release. He noted that a refusal would have entailed disastrous consequences for British interests in Libya. 'They would have closed us down, just like the Swiss.'"
[The above passage now appears on Der Spiegel's English language website. Their English version reads as follows:]
Americans dispatched to Libya report in great detail on Gadhafi's peculiarities, the airs and graces of his sons and the degree to which his advisers fear his wrath. For example, they closely monitored how wounded pride led him to take two Swiss citizens hostage and humiliate the Swiss government, how he almost forced Canada to its knees by threatening to nationalize the assets of PetroCanada and how he more or less compelled the British to extradite Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, most of them Americans.
As one dispatch explained: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release program. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss.'"
Lockerbie truth might be revealed at last if Libya sues Britain for false imprisonment of Megrahi
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has told students at the London School of Economics that, upon the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, his country will sue the British Government for falsely imprisoning him.
How strange that, if true, those who seek the truth over Lockerbie may find the colonel providing the pathway they need to have the legal case against Megrahi reviewed, following the withdrawal of Libya’s appeal.
This unfortunate man was convicted as having been an active member of the Libyan intelligence service. Many now believe the verdict was fatally flawed.
In view of continuing obstruction from those governments of those in the west who still seek the truth, what could be more appropriate than that the Libyan government should now pursue the issue?
How sad that success would only come after Megrahi’s death. But at least it would lift the weight from the shoulders of his wife, Aisha, and the family.
One cannot at present see how the difficulties can be overcome, and if pursued, the timescale may still be lengthy. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Libyan state, which seemed to have resolved the post-Lockerbie situation to its satisfaction by gaining the return of its convicted citizen and the resurrection of its oil industry, should now be taking the lead in an action which would, at its centre, require the overturning of the verdict against Megrahi.
All one can add is that while the Colonel Gaddafi is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and has made it clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming it had been reached under improper political pressure.
If such an action were to succeed, it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the WikiLeaks documents put together.
The world must hope that justice and truth, not violence and vengeance, win the day.
[The same newspaper has an article on the Gaddafi litigation suggestion. It reads in part:]
The family of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will lose any compensation claim for his alleged neglect in a Scottish jail, a leading expert said last night.
Professor Robert Black, who helped create the Scottish court in the Netherlands that convicted Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing, said a claim for neglect or false imprisonment would be a legal “non-starter”.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was yesterday reported to have said Megrahi’s family was set to sue over the terminally-ill former intelligence officer’s treatment in Greenock Prison.
The dictator, who is prone to controversial but cryptic comments, was said to have used a video link to tell students and staff at the London School of Economics Megrahi was “released because he was considered dead, and yet he is still alive”.
Colonel Gaddafi reportedly added: “His health was not looked after during his time in prison. He didn’t have any periodic examination. After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison.”
Mr Black – who has backed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988 – last night said he could see no legal grounds for an action for damages.
The retired Edinburgh University law professor said: “While the conviction stands, any thought of a successful action for false imprisonment is really, really not a starter.
“The family theoretically could sue in the Scottish courts if the treatment or lack of treatment that he received while in Greenock exacerbated his condition. But that would be very, very difficult.
“They would have to prove that his condition is worse because ot the treatment or lack of treatment in Greenock. I honestly don’t think that would get anywhere.
“Megrahi has lasted a year longer than was anticipated so it would be difficult to prove the lack of treatment he received in Scotland reduced his lifespan.
“Indeed, being back in the bosom of his family may well have given him a boost.” (...)
The Scottish Government yesterday rejected any claim that the Libyan, who had his own “suite” in Greenock Prison, was neglected. A spokesman said: “He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner.” The Scottish Prisons Service gave a similar response.
Campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed at Lockerbie, believes the Libyans’ main priority would be overturning Megrahi’s guilty verdict.
Megrahi himself withdrew his appeal against conviction – which was sparked by an investigation from the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission that found he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
In a letter in today’s Herald, Dr Swire writes: “While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and he made it very clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
“If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister last night said any action by the Megrahi family would be a matter for the Scottish Government given that it decided to release the Libyan.
He said: “The Prime Minister’s personal views on Megrahi’s release are well known – he believed it was wrong. That has not changed. But the decision to release Megrahi was a matter for the Scottish Government, as would any legal case concerning his detention.”
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's edition of The Scotsman. An article in the same newspaper contains the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said Col Gadaffi's intervention was "remarkable" after the North African leader appeared "satisfied" following the release of Megrahi.
Mr Swire said that any move for compensation "would at its centre require the overturning of the verdict" against Mr Megrahi.
"While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal," Mr Swire added.
"He made it very clear in early September [when Dr Swire had a meeting with him] that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
"If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together."
The Rev John Mosey, the father of a victim of the bombing, said he could not imagine the Scottish authorities "being deliberately neglectful".
He added: "On a physical level it would seem he was very well catered for - possibly above the average."
The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has told students at the London School of Economics that, upon the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, his country will sue the British Government for falsely imprisoning him.
How strange that, if true, those who seek the truth over Lockerbie may find the colonel providing the pathway they need to have the legal case against Megrahi reviewed, following the withdrawal of Libya’s appeal.
This unfortunate man was convicted as having been an active member of the Libyan intelligence service. Many now believe the verdict was fatally flawed.
In view of continuing obstruction from those governments of those in the west who still seek the truth, what could be more appropriate than that the Libyan government should now pursue the issue?
How sad that success would only come after Megrahi’s death. But at least it would lift the weight from the shoulders of his wife, Aisha, and the family.
One cannot at present see how the difficulties can be overcome, and if pursued, the timescale may still be lengthy. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Libyan state, which seemed to have resolved the post-Lockerbie situation to its satisfaction by gaining the return of its convicted citizen and the resurrection of its oil industry, should now be taking the lead in an action which would, at its centre, require the overturning of the verdict against Megrahi.
All one can add is that while the Colonel Gaddafi is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and has made it clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming it had been reached under improper political pressure.
If such an action were to succeed, it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the WikiLeaks documents put together.
The world must hope that justice and truth, not violence and vengeance, win the day.
[The same newspaper has an article on the Gaddafi litigation suggestion. It reads in part:]
The family of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will lose any compensation claim for his alleged neglect in a Scottish jail, a leading expert said last night.
Professor Robert Black, who helped create the Scottish court in the Netherlands that convicted Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing, said a claim for neglect or false imprisonment would be a legal “non-starter”.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was yesterday reported to have said Megrahi’s family was set to sue over the terminally-ill former intelligence officer’s treatment in Greenock Prison.
The dictator, who is prone to controversial but cryptic comments, was said to have used a video link to tell students and staff at the London School of Economics Megrahi was “released because he was considered dead, and yet he is still alive”.
Colonel Gaddafi reportedly added: “His health was not looked after during his time in prison. He didn’t have any periodic examination. After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison.”
Mr Black – who has backed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988 – last night said he could see no legal grounds for an action for damages.
The retired Edinburgh University law professor said: “While the conviction stands, any thought of a successful action for false imprisonment is really, really not a starter.
“The family theoretically could sue in the Scottish courts if the treatment or lack of treatment that he received while in Greenock exacerbated his condition. But that would be very, very difficult.
“They would have to prove that his condition is worse because ot the treatment or lack of treatment in Greenock. I honestly don’t think that would get anywhere.
“Megrahi has lasted a year longer than was anticipated so it would be difficult to prove the lack of treatment he received in Scotland reduced his lifespan.
“Indeed, being back in the bosom of his family may well have given him a boost.” (...)
The Scottish Government yesterday rejected any claim that the Libyan, who had his own “suite” in Greenock Prison, was neglected. A spokesman said: “He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner.” The Scottish Prisons Service gave a similar response.
Campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed at Lockerbie, believes the Libyans’ main priority would be overturning Megrahi’s guilty verdict.
Megrahi himself withdrew his appeal against conviction – which was sparked by an investigation from the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission that found he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
In a letter in today’s Herald, Dr Swire writes: “While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and he made it very clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
“If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister last night said any action by the Megrahi family would be a matter for the Scottish Government given that it decided to release the Libyan.
He said: “The Prime Minister’s personal views on Megrahi’s release are well known – he believed it was wrong. That has not changed. But the decision to release Megrahi was a matter for the Scottish Government, as would any legal case concerning his detention.”
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's edition of The Scotsman. An article in the same newspaper contains the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said Col Gadaffi's intervention was "remarkable" after the North African leader appeared "satisfied" following the release of Megrahi.
Mr Swire said that any move for compensation "would at its centre require the overturning of the verdict" against Mr Megrahi.
"While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal," Mr Swire added.
"He made it very clear in early September [when Dr Swire had a meeting with him] that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
"If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together."
The Rev John Mosey, the father of a victim of the bombing, said he could not imagine the Scottish authorities "being deliberately neglectful".
He added: "On a physical level it would seem he was very well catered for - possibly above the average."
Friday, 3 December 2010
Megrahi's family "to sue for false imprisonment"
The family of released Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is preparing to sue Britain for false imprisonment, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi claimed last night.
The Libyan leader said Megrahi remained “very ill” with prostate cancer following his controversial release by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds in August last year, and blamed his poor health on intentional “neglect” he suffered in prison.
Col Gaddafi said his family will mount a compensation claim once the 58-year-old dies.
“After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison,” he said.
“His health was not looked after in prison, and he didn’t have any periodic examinations. I wish him a long life. He was released because he was considered dead, and yet he was still alive.”
Col Gaddafi made the claims during a speech to students and staff at the London School of Economics (LSE) via a live video-link, which is understood to have been organised through his son Saif Al-Gaddafi who has a doctorate from the university.
The compensation claim could run into several million pounds, according to Libyan diplomatic officials who attended the talk.
Col Gaddafi alleged that the case against the former intelligence agent had “been fabricated and created by” former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher and former US President Ronald Reagan.
He even suggested that CIA agents had been behind the 1988 terrorist atrocity, in which 270 people were killed after a Pan Am airline blew up over Scotland.
“These are the people who created this conspiracy,” said Col Gaddafi, referring to Lady Thatcher’s and Mr Reagan’s alleged role in a Megrahi's murder conviction and life sentence over the attack.
“The charges directed towards Libya were based on unfounded evidence in an attempt to weaken the Libyan Revolution and limit its resources and abilities.” (...)
The theory about the CIA’s alleged involvement in the Lockerbie disaster has already been advanced in a controversial documentary film and a number of books.
The Maltese Double Cross — Lockerbie a 1994 documentary produced by the late US director Allan Francovich, alleges that a bomb was introduced onto the ill-fated flight in a CIA-protected suitcase, and had nothing to do with Megrahi.
“Everybody considers him [Megrahi] to be innocent,” Col Gaddafi added.
[The above is from a report just published on The Telegraph website.
There is a similar report in The Scotsman. The report in The Sun contains the following quotes from relatives of victims of the Lockerbie disaster:]
But last night Susan Cohen, 72 - who lost her only daughter Theo, 20, in the 1988 Pan Am disaster - branded the threat of legal action "outrageous and insulting".
Susan, of New Jersey, US, said: "If this legal action were to go ahead - and we have no reason to think that it will not - then it would be an absolute outrage.
"Megrahi was found guilty at trial, and all this bluster from Gaddafi is designed to do one thing - to one day get a not guilty verdict for that man.
"The families of those killed who live in the US will be horrified to learn of what he has said."
Peter Lowenstein, 75, of New York, whose son Alexander, 21, was killed in the atrocity, claimed Megrahi was "a lunatic". He added: "There was a trial, the man was found guilty.
"The evidence, although circumstantial, was overwhelming.
"I see no reason and no rationale for suing the British government for unlawful imprisonment - that is absurd." (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora also perished in the bombing, welcomed the news that Megrahi's relatives could sue.
Dr Swire - who believes Megrahi to be innocent - said: "This might offer a chance to review the legal case against Megrahi.
"I think those of us who still seek the truth of what happened at Lockerbie would welcome that course of action."
And a Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government do not doubt the conviction of al-Megrahi.
"He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner within the Scottish prison system."
[Further reaction from the Scottish Government and others is to be found in this report on the BBC News website. What the Scottish Conservatives think about it can be read here. Is it any wonder that the party is dying on its feet in Scotland?
Any action for false imprisonment or for inadequate medical treatment while in prison would have to be brought against the Scottish, not the British, Government. While Megrahi's conviction remains in place, any action for false imprisonment would be doomed to almost inevitable failure. In an action based on neglect or inadequate medical care by the Scottish Prison Service, his family would have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, (a) that there was such neglect and (b) that the neglect caused or materially contributed to his death. I see no realistic prospect of success in this.
A better course of action for the Megrahi family would be a further application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, in the hope that they could surmount the hurdles recently erected by section 7 of the Cadder emergency legislation.]
The Libyan leader said Megrahi remained “very ill” with prostate cancer following his controversial release by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds in August last year, and blamed his poor health on intentional “neglect” he suffered in prison.
Col Gaddafi said his family will mount a compensation claim once the 58-year-old dies.
“After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison,” he said.
“His health was not looked after in prison, and he didn’t have any periodic examinations. I wish him a long life. He was released because he was considered dead, and yet he was still alive.”
Col Gaddafi made the claims during a speech to students and staff at the London School of Economics (LSE) via a live video-link, which is understood to have been organised through his son Saif Al-Gaddafi who has a doctorate from the university.
The compensation claim could run into several million pounds, according to Libyan diplomatic officials who attended the talk.
Col Gaddafi alleged that the case against the former intelligence agent had “been fabricated and created by” former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher and former US President Ronald Reagan.
He even suggested that CIA agents had been behind the 1988 terrorist atrocity, in which 270 people were killed after a Pan Am airline blew up over Scotland.
“These are the people who created this conspiracy,” said Col Gaddafi, referring to Lady Thatcher’s and Mr Reagan’s alleged role in a Megrahi's murder conviction and life sentence over the attack.
“The charges directed towards Libya were based on unfounded evidence in an attempt to weaken the Libyan Revolution and limit its resources and abilities.” (...)
The theory about the CIA’s alleged involvement in the Lockerbie disaster has already been advanced in a controversial documentary film and a number of books.
The Maltese Double Cross — Lockerbie a 1994 documentary produced by the late US director Allan Francovich, alleges that a bomb was introduced onto the ill-fated flight in a CIA-protected suitcase, and had nothing to do with Megrahi.
“Everybody considers him [Megrahi] to be innocent,” Col Gaddafi added.
[The above is from a report just published on The Telegraph website.
There is a similar report in The Scotsman. The report in The Sun contains the following quotes from relatives of victims of the Lockerbie disaster:]
But last night Susan Cohen, 72 - who lost her only daughter Theo, 20, in the 1988 Pan Am disaster - branded the threat of legal action "outrageous and insulting".
Susan, of New Jersey, US, said: "If this legal action were to go ahead - and we have no reason to think that it will not - then it would be an absolute outrage.
"Megrahi was found guilty at trial, and all this bluster from Gaddafi is designed to do one thing - to one day get a not guilty verdict for that man.
"The families of those killed who live in the US will be horrified to learn of what he has said."
Peter Lowenstein, 75, of New York, whose son Alexander, 21, was killed in the atrocity, claimed Megrahi was "a lunatic". He added: "There was a trial, the man was found guilty.
"The evidence, although circumstantial, was overwhelming.
"I see no reason and no rationale for suing the British government for unlawful imprisonment - that is absurd." (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora also perished in the bombing, welcomed the news that Megrahi's relatives could sue.
Dr Swire - who believes Megrahi to be innocent - said: "This might offer a chance to review the legal case against Megrahi.
"I think those of us who still seek the truth of what happened at Lockerbie would welcome that course of action."
And a Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government do not doubt the conviction of al-Megrahi.
"He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner within the Scottish prison system."
[Further reaction from the Scottish Government and others is to be found in this report on the BBC News website. What the Scottish Conservatives think about it can be read here. Is it any wonder that the party is dying on its feet in Scotland?
Any action for false imprisonment or for inadequate medical treatment while in prison would have to be brought against the Scottish, not the British, Government. While Megrahi's conviction remains in place, any action for false imprisonment would be doomed to almost inevitable failure. In an action based on neglect or inadequate medical care by the Scottish Prison Service, his family would have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, (a) that there was such neglect and (b) that the neglect caused or materially contributed to his death. I see no realistic prospect of success in this.
A better course of action for the Megrahi family would be a further application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, in the hope that they could surmount the hurdles recently erected by section 7 of the Cadder emergency legislation.]
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
The perception filter
[This is the headline over a long and detailed article about the Lockerbie case by Steven Raeburn just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The first few paragraphs read as follows:]
“Lockerbie”, whatever that word now means, is a stain on Scotland, its justice system, and its institutions. Since the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, “Lockerbie” has allowed Scotland to bear the scorn of US senators, the angst, bloodlust and ire of bereaved families who feel they have been denied justice, and has become both a hot potato and a political football between Edinburgh and London. Governments around the world are prepared to condemn Scotland for the international embarrassment of Lockerbie.
Whatever that word now means.
I’ve been covering the Pan Am 103 debacle for a number of years now. A tragic event that became a 22 year long rolling news story. It’s a story that won’t go away, because the answers thus far yielded by due process satisfy no one.
For this reason, Scotland sadly deserves its shame, disgrace and international condemnation. But certainly not for the reasons offered and repeatedly churned.
The story of the Lockerbie events has been allowed to be drowned out by one version, promoted, if not manufactured, by US intelligence and repeated by our own prosecution service and our government, in denial of later revelation, who maintain even to this day that they "do not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi,” despite it being utterly discredited, in addition to adjudged a possible miscarriage by our Criminal Cases Review Commission. It continues to be upheld, with every opportunity to address it spurned or frustrated. Perhaps its last chance for resolution rests with the Scottish [Government], who have until 10 December to respond to the public petitions committee and advise if they will hold an inquiry that may bring some clarity to what has become an international scandal.
The scandal is not that Scotland released a mass murderer. It is that we allowed a man to be convicted as one in the first place, and have done nothing to erase the stain of what could be the greatest miscarriage of justice ever perpetrated by our courts.
[The full article can (and should) be read here.
Lockerbie trial UN observer Professor Hans Köchler and Justice for Megrahi signatory member Professor Noam Chomsky have written to Steven Raeburn to congratulate him on this article.]
“Lockerbie”, whatever that word now means, is a stain on Scotland, its justice system, and its institutions. Since the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, “Lockerbie” has allowed Scotland to bear the scorn of US senators, the angst, bloodlust and ire of bereaved families who feel they have been denied justice, and has become both a hot potato and a political football between Edinburgh and London. Governments around the world are prepared to condemn Scotland for the international embarrassment of Lockerbie.
Whatever that word now means.
I’ve been covering the Pan Am 103 debacle for a number of years now. A tragic event that became a 22 year long rolling news story. It’s a story that won’t go away, because the answers thus far yielded by due process satisfy no one.
For this reason, Scotland sadly deserves its shame, disgrace and international condemnation. But certainly not for the reasons offered and repeatedly churned.
The story of the Lockerbie events has been allowed to be drowned out by one version, promoted, if not manufactured, by US intelligence and repeated by our own prosecution service and our government, in denial of later revelation, who maintain even to this day that they "do not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi,” despite it being utterly discredited, in addition to adjudged a possible miscarriage by our Criminal Cases Review Commission. It continues to be upheld, with every opportunity to address it spurned or frustrated. Perhaps its last chance for resolution rests with the Scottish [Government], who have until 10 December to respond to the public petitions committee and advise if they will hold an inquiry that may bring some clarity to what has become an international scandal.
The scandal is not that Scotland released a mass murderer. It is that we allowed a man to be convicted as one in the first place, and have done nothing to erase the stain of what could be the greatest miscarriage of justice ever perpetrated by our courts.
[The full article can (and should) be read here.
Lockerbie trial UN observer Professor Hans Köchler and Justice for Megrahi signatory member Professor Noam Chomsky have written to Steven Raeburn to congratulate him on this article.]
Lockerbie in the House of Commons
30 Nov 2010 : Column 712W
Lockerbie: Bombings
Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what level of (a) disclosure and (b) dissemination has been applied to information regarding Abdul Baset Al Megrahi held by the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and if he will make a statement. [26515]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: None. The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not hold any information or material relating to Abdul Baset Al Megrahi. As he was convicted by the Scottish courts, the Criminal Cases Review Commission does not have the power to review his conviction or sentence. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can review the convictions or sentences of those convicted by the Scottish courts.
[The above is from the Written Answers section of Hansard. Guy Opperman is the Conservative MP for Hexham; Kenneth Clarke is Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in the UK Government.]
Lockerbie: Bombings
Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what level of (a) disclosure and (b) dissemination has been applied to information regarding Abdul Baset Al Megrahi held by the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and if he will make a statement. [26515]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: None. The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not hold any information or material relating to Abdul Baset Al Megrahi. As he was convicted by the Scottish courts, the Criminal Cases Review Commission does not have the power to review his conviction or sentence. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can review the convictions or sentences of those convicted by the Scottish courts.
[The above is from the Written Answers section of Hansard. Guy Opperman is the Conservative MP for Hexham; Kenneth Clarke is Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in the UK Government.]
US anger over Megrahi may have stopped McKinnon deal
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It follows up on yesterday's story in The Guardian speculating that US anger over the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi might have influenced the US Government to reject Gordon Brown's August 2009 proposal regarding hacker Gary McKinnon. The report reads in part:]
Politicians expressed fears last night that anger over the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing had influenced America’s refusal to agree a deal over Gary McKinnon.
Leaked US diplomatic cables revealed for the first time that Gordon Brown had suggested such an agreement in August last year, which would have avoided McKinnon’s extradition.
But around the same time separate secret cables reveal the depth of US anger over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also last August. (...) [RB: As far as I can see, no such "separate secret cables" feature among those so far published by WikiLeaks.]
Last night politicians expressed fears McKinnon, originally from Glasgow, had been treated as a “diplomatic pawn” between America and the UK.
David Burrowes, McKinnon’s MP, said he was concerned McKinnon was denied justice “for political reasons”.
He called on the Americans to review their decision, and added that when he heard Megrahi was to be released, “I thought it put paid to any hope that we had of America making a compassionate decision about Gary.” (...)
The cables show that, despite public claims by the UK Government that it could not intervene, the then prime minister suggested a deal during a meeting with the American ambassador to London. Under the proposal, McKinnon would plead guilty but serve any sentence in the UK.
The newly released cable, to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, says that request was passed on to the American attorney general, Eric Holder, and was written by the ambassador, Louis Susman.
Mr Susman told an influential Scottish audience earlier this year that Megrahi should never have been released. (...)
Last night Labour called for reassurances that the decision taken to release Megrahi, by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, had no influence on the case.
Elaine Murray, the Labour MSP for Dumfries, said: “There is no doubt that Kenny MacAskill’s flawed decision to release the Lockerbie bomber damaged our international relationships, but it is important to establish that it did not have an impact on other specific cases.” (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said that it had not known about Mr Brown’s intervention in the case. However, he added that Scottish ministers believed that no external factors should influence such decisions.
“It is our view that justice decisions should be taken on justice grounds alone and no other factor, as certainly happened in the case of Megrahi,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Gordon Brown last night refused to comment. Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, is currently considering McKinnon’s case.
[There is a related opinion piece by Duncan Campbell on The Guardian website in which he refers to "the alleged Lockerbie bomber".
The following comment comes from columnist Heather Mallick in the Toronto Star:]
Speaking of thin-skinned nations that are intolerant of perceived criticism, the US refused to hear British pleas for the fate of Gary McKinnon, the young Brit with autism who hacked into Pentagon files in 2001 to search for proof of the existence of UFOs. The US is extraditing him, presumably to jail him for life. Why? Because the UK released the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. In fact, the independent Scottish judiciary [sic] released him, possibly just to annoy Downing Street, and also because, embarrassingly, he appeared to be a tiny bit “not guilty.”
Politicians expressed fears last night that anger over the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing had influenced America’s refusal to agree a deal over Gary McKinnon.
Leaked US diplomatic cables revealed for the first time that Gordon Brown had suggested such an agreement in August last year, which would have avoided McKinnon’s extradition.
But around the same time separate secret cables reveal the depth of US anger over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also last August. (...) [RB: As far as I can see, no such "separate secret cables" feature among those so far published by WikiLeaks.]
Last night politicians expressed fears McKinnon, originally from Glasgow, had been treated as a “diplomatic pawn” between America and the UK.
David Burrowes, McKinnon’s MP, said he was concerned McKinnon was denied justice “for political reasons”.
He called on the Americans to review their decision, and added that when he heard Megrahi was to be released, “I thought it put paid to any hope that we had of America making a compassionate decision about Gary.” (...)
The cables show that, despite public claims by the UK Government that it could not intervene, the then prime minister suggested a deal during a meeting with the American ambassador to London. Under the proposal, McKinnon would plead guilty but serve any sentence in the UK.
The newly released cable, to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, says that request was passed on to the American attorney general, Eric Holder, and was written by the ambassador, Louis Susman.
Mr Susman told an influential Scottish audience earlier this year that Megrahi should never have been released. (...)
Last night Labour called for reassurances that the decision taken to release Megrahi, by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, had no influence on the case.
Elaine Murray, the Labour MSP for Dumfries, said: “There is no doubt that Kenny MacAskill’s flawed decision to release the Lockerbie bomber damaged our international relationships, but it is important to establish that it did not have an impact on other specific cases.” (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said that it had not known about Mr Brown’s intervention in the case. However, he added that Scottish ministers believed that no external factors should influence such decisions.
“It is our view that justice decisions should be taken on justice grounds alone and no other factor, as certainly happened in the case of Megrahi,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Gordon Brown last night refused to comment. Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, is currently considering McKinnon’s case.
[There is a related opinion piece by Duncan Campbell on The Guardian website in which he refers to "the alleged Lockerbie bomber".
The following comment comes from columnist Heather Mallick in the Toronto Star:]
Speaking of thin-skinned nations that are intolerant of perceived criticism, the US refused to hear British pleas for the fate of Gary McKinnon, the young Brit with autism who hacked into Pentagon files in 2001 to search for proof of the existence of UFOs. The US is extraditing him, presumably to jail him for life. Why? Because the UK released the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. In fact, the independent Scottish judiciary [sic] released him, possibly just to annoy Downing Street, and also because, embarrassingly, he appeared to be a tiny bit “not guilty.”
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Abdelbaset Megrahi and Gary McKinnon
Leaked US embassy cables reveal that Gordon Brown unsuccessfully put his reputation as prime minister on the line in a plea to Washington that the computer hacker Gary McKinnon be allowed to serve any sentence in the UK. (...)
Brown made his unsuccessful direct intervention in August 2009, according to a secret cable from the US ambassador in the UK, Louis Susman, to the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
Susman wrote: "PM Brown, in a one-on-one meeting with the ambassador, proposed a deal: that McKinnon plead guilty, make a statement of contrition, but serve any sentence of incarceration in the UK. Brown cited deep public concern that McKinnon, with his medical condition, would commit suicide or suffer injury if imprisoned in a US facility."
The ambassador says he sought to raise Brown's request in Washington with Obama's newly appointed attorney general, Eric Holder. But the plea got nowhere.
In October last year, the ambassador had to warn Clinton on a visit to the UK that the prime minister was likely to raise the McKinnon case again.
"McKinnon has gained enormous popular sympathy in his appeal against extradition; the UK's final decision is pending." he reported. "The case has also caused public criticism of the US-UK extradition treaty."
One reason for Brown's failure may have been barely contained US rage, spelled out in other secret cable traffic around the same time, that the UK was releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Ali Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to what turned out to be a hero's welcome in Libya.
[From a report published earlier today on The Guardian website. The "other secret cable traffic" relating to Megrahi's release does not seem to have yet been published.]
Brown made his unsuccessful direct intervention in August 2009, according to a secret cable from the US ambassador in the UK, Louis Susman, to the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
Susman wrote: "PM Brown, in a one-on-one meeting with the ambassador, proposed a deal: that McKinnon plead guilty, make a statement of contrition, but serve any sentence of incarceration in the UK. Brown cited deep public concern that McKinnon, with his medical condition, would commit suicide or suffer injury if imprisoned in a US facility."
The ambassador says he sought to raise Brown's request in Washington with Obama's newly appointed attorney general, Eric Holder. But the plea got nowhere.
In October last year, the ambassador had to warn Clinton on a visit to the UK that the prime minister was likely to raise the McKinnon case again.
"McKinnon has gained enormous popular sympathy in his appeal against extradition; the UK's final decision is pending." he reported. "The case has also caused public criticism of the US-UK extradition treaty."
One reason for Brown's failure may have been barely contained US rage, spelled out in other secret cable traffic around the same time, that the UK was releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Ali Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to what turned out to be a hero's welcome in Libya.
[From a report published earlier today on The Guardian website. The "other secret cable traffic" relating to Megrahi's release does not seem to have yet been published.]
Another gripping snippet
American diplomats branded a Labour former minister a ‘hound dog where women are concerned’.
Political websites last night named him as Ivan Lewis, who served as the Foreign Office minister for Libya in the last Labour government.
The name, contained in a cable from the US embassy in London, was withheld by The Guardian newspaper, which obtained the full dispatch from WikiLeaks.
Mr Lewis – the Labour MP for Bury who is now his party’s culture spokesman – declined to comment last night. (...)
Mr Lewis would have angered the US because in 2009, when he was the Foreign Office minister responsible for Libya, he wrote to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, giving him the green light to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi under the prisoner transfer agreement.
[From an article by Gerri Peev in today's edition of the Daily Mail.]
Political websites last night named him as Ivan Lewis, who served as the Foreign Office minister for Libya in the last Labour government.
The name, contained in a cable from the US embassy in London, was withheld by The Guardian newspaper, which obtained the full dispatch from WikiLeaks.
Mr Lewis – the Labour MP for Bury who is now his party’s culture spokesman – declined to comment last night. (...)
Mr Lewis would have angered the US because in 2009, when he was the Foreign Office minister responsible for Libya, he wrote to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, giving him the green light to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi under the prisoner transfer agreement.
[From an article by Gerri Peev in today's edition of the Daily Mail.]
Monday, 29 November 2010
Isn't this exciting?
As far as I can discern from a preliminary trawl of The Guardian and The New York Times websites, the tranche of US State Department cables just released does not contain any Megrahi or Lockerbie material. However, this September 2009 assessment of Gaddafi by the US ambassador to Tripoli has some entertainment value.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Wikileaks data contains "significant Lockerbie material"
[This is the heading over a report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Firm has learned that "significant" case materials relating to the Pan Am 103 debacle are among the 3 million sensitive documents scheduled to be released by the Wikileaks site in the next 24 hours.
Sources close to the UK Government who have had access to the material have briefed The Firm ahead of their release, although the precise nature of the materials has not been disclosed.
On Friday the United States Government alerted its allies through diplomatic channels to forewarn them of the details of some of the materials that they anticipated would be amongst the leaked material. (...)
It is reported this morning that the UK government has issued a Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) to editors not to publish or broadcast extracts from leaks of sensitive US cables that relate to issues of national security, and that David Cameron’s office has confirmed that the US ambassador Louis Susman has briefed the government on what might be contained in the files.
[Given the period covered by the US State Department cables, I remain of the view that the only material in the documents relevant to Lockerbie will be material relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation to Libya. They will contain nothing relating to the circumstances of the investigation, prosecution and trial.
I like the following comment from the For Argyll website:]
And what will the coming Wikileaks revelations tell us about American conduct behind the scenes in the Al Megrahi affair? Will the pompous publicity hound, Senator Robert Menendez be discombobulated? We can’t wait.
The Firm has learned that "significant" case materials relating to the Pan Am 103 debacle are among the 3 million sensitive documents scheduled to be released by the Wikileaks site in the next 24 hours.
Sources close to the UK Government who have had access to the material have briefed The Firm ahead of their release, although the precise nature of the materials has not been disclosed.
On Friday the United States Government alerted its allies through diplomatic channels to forewarn them of the details of some of the materials that they anticipated would be amongst the leaked material. (...)
It is reported this morning that the UK government has issued a Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) to editors not to publish or broadcast extracts from leaks of sensitive US cables that relate to issues of national security, and that David Cameron’s office has confirmed that the US ambassador Louis Susman has briefed the government on what might be contained in the files.
[Given the period covered by the US State Department cables, I remain of the view that the only material in the documents relevant to Lockerbie will be material relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation to Libya. They will contain nothing relating to the circumstances of the investigation, prosecution and trial.
I like the following comment from the For Argyll website:]
And what will the coming Wikileaks revelations tell us about American conduct behind the scenes in the Al Megrahi affair? Will the pompous publicity hound, Senator Robert Menendez be discombobulated? We can’t wait.
Old wounds that need re-opened
This is the heading over a long post on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. The post consists of a thoughtful discussion of Father Pat Keegans's recent letter to US Lockerbie families and of the reaction quoted in the original report in The Herald from one US relative, to the effect that an inquiry into the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi would "open old wounds".
The questions that Caustic Logic poses to the US relatives are questions that can equally be addressed to the Scottish Government which, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, continues to parrot the mantra that it does "not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.”
The questions that Caustic Logic poses to the US relatives are questions that can equally be addressed to the Scottish Government which, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, continues to parrot the mantra that it does "not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)