[This is the view expressed in an opinion piece by Hugh McLachlan, Professor of Law and Social Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, in today's edition of The Scotsman. It can be read -- but only by subscribers to the newspaper's premium content -- here. The following are excerpts.]
The information publicised recently by WikiLeaks regarding the release from prison of Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi suggests that, all along, the Scottish Government has been telling the truth. He was not released for reasons of commercial expediency. He was released on the grounds of compassion in accordance with what were considered to be the principles and practices of Scots Law.
However, to say that in terms of the prevailing relevant rules, the decision of Kenny MacAskill, the Minister of Justice, was impeccable is not to defend the rules. (...)
... I do not find it understandable and excusable that someone who is assumed to be guilty of murdering two hundred and seventy people should be released from prison because he is terminally ill. This is a shocking injustice. The rules and procedures that lead to this outcome would appear to be wrong. At the very least, they require an elaboration and a justification.
If you murder two hundred and seventy people no punishment will be enough. You will not live long enough to serve an adequately long prison sentence no matter how long you live. That, at some stage, you have only a few months to live would not be a justification for ending that punishment. Compassion would be an appropriate motive for giving you medical treatment if you became ill but not for setting you free.
If Mr al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted, he did not deserve to be in prison. He should have been released -- but not on the grounds of compassion. He should have been released on the grounds of justice.
If, as Mr MacAskill's decision assumes, he is guilty of killing two hundred and seventy people, he deserves to be in jail whether he is terminally ill or not. His terminal illness is irrelevant to the justice of his punishment. To give him medical treatment is an appropriate compassionate response.
To release him from prison out of compassion is inappropriate. It is unethical.
[It surprises me somewhat to find a professor of law (even when combined with social sciences) ascribing the provision of medical treatment to ill prisoners to an exercise of compassion. I should have thought it was a matter of legal duty.
I am grateful to Professor McLachlan for informing me that The Scotsman misdescribed him. He is in fact Professor of Applied Philosophy in the School of Law and Social Sciences.]
Friday, 17 December 2010
Gaddafi Foundation trustees concerned over Megrahi release role
[What follows is from a report in today's edition of the Financial Times.]
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s charity and the vehicle he has used to raise his political profile has announced an abrupt end to its advocacy of human rights and political reform, in what could represent a big setback for the son and heir apparent of the Libyan leader. (...)
In a statement late on Wednesday, the Gaddafi foundation announced it would focus on the less controversial work of delivering aid and relief to disadvantaged people primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Saif’s role as chairman, moreover, would become honorary, with the board of trustees acting as the supreme governing authority. (...)
The Gaddafi foundation statement said the board of trustees had voiced concern that the charity’s lobbying for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, from a Scottish jail, and the delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip, had “taken on political overtones” and left the organisation open to criticism from “supporters of Israel”.
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s charity and the vehicle he has used to raise his political profile has announced an abrupt end to its advocacy of human rights and political reform, in what could represent a big setback for the son and heir apparent of the Libyan leader. (...)
In a statement late on Wednesday, the Gaddafi foundation announced it would focus on the less controversial work of delivering aid and relief to disadvantaged people primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Saif’s role as chairman, moreover, would become honorary, with the board of trustees acting as the supreme governing authority. (...)
The Gaddafi foundation statement said the board of trustees had voiced concern that the charity’s lobbying for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, from a Scottish jail, and the delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip, had “taken on political overtones” and left the organisation open to criticism from “supporters of Israel”.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Gauci on al-Megrahi: Part II
The second part of Caustic Logic's video on Tony Gauci's "identification" of Abdelbaset Megrahi at the Zeist trial can be viewed here on The Lockerbie Divide blog.
Monday, 13 December 2010
Video: Gauci on al-Megrahi
This is the heading over a post on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. It is subtitled "A little bit like exactly" like a non-identification. The post consists of the first part of a two-part video setting out the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci that the Zeist court regarded as justifying the conclusion that Abdelbaset Megrahi was the purchaser of the items that surrounded the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103. The perverseness of this conclusion was one of the reasons founded on by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in deciding that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Scottish Parliament motion regarding SCCRC disclosure
[What follows is the text of a motion just tabled in the Scottish Parliament by the SNP's Christine Grahame MSP.]
*S3M-7586 Christine Grahame: SCCRC, the Megrahi Conviction and SSI 2009/448 Article 2(b)—That the Parliament considers but is not surprised that, in terms of article 2(b) of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force in February 2010, third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them, that parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked and therefore urges the Scottish Government to either repeal or amend SSI 2009/448 to remove article 2(b) in the interests of openness, accountability and justice.
[Ms Grahame has also submitted a written question in the following terms:]
S3W-38294 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce a further statutory instrument amending the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009 to delete Article 2(b).
Due for answer Tuesday, January 18, 2011
*S3M-7586 Christine Grahame: SCCRC, the Megrahi Conviction and SSI 2009/448 Article 2(b)—That the Parliament considers but is not surprised that, in terms of article 2(b) of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force in February 2010, third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them, that parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked and therefore urges the Scottish Government to either repeal or amend SSI 2009/448 to remove article 2(b) in the interests of openness, accountability and justice.
[Ms Grahame has also submitted a written question in the following terms:]
S3W-38294 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce a further statutory instrument amending the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009 to delete Article 2(b).
Due for answer Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Plan for Blair to block hero’s burial for Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It can be accessed -- but only by those who have subscribed -- here. The report reads in part:]
The Foreign Office fears that Gadaffi intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark Megrahi’s imminent death from prostate cancer
Gordon Brown's government planned to use Tony Blair as a “lever of influence” to persuade Libya not to give the Lockerbie bomber a hero’s funeral, leaked documents reveal.
The Foreign Office fears that Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, who has declared Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi innocent of Britain’s worst terrorist attack, intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark his imminent death from prostate cancer.
Sources close to Megrahi’s family have claimed he is now in a coma and expected to die within days — although Scottish officials insist that he had been well enough to contact them recently.
David Cameron’s administration has warned the Libyans that a state funeral for the man given compassionate release from a Scottish prison last year would be deeply offensive to relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up above Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. (...)
Last week, a secret US government cable, published by WikiLeaks, described how the Foreign Office regarded Brown’s predecessor as its best hope to persuade Gadaffi not to hold a state funeral for Megrahi. The memo, dated February 25, reported that Philippa Saunders, the incoming Foreign Office director for north Africa, had told US diplomats that Britain regarded Libya’s plans for Megrahi’s funeral as “a major concern and one that HMG [Her Majesty’s government] continues to raise regularly”. It said the British embassy was “engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK levers of influence with Tripoli”, although it warned, “unfortunately, there aren’t too many”.
Saunders, the cable said, singled out Blair as someone who night be able to intervene. It added: “The effort partially originated from the assumption there will be maybe a 48-hour window if we’re lucky between Megrahi’s eventual death and a funeral and the [Foreign Office] wants to ensure HMG is in a position to act quickly.”
Blair helped rehabilitate Gadaffi’s regime in the eyes of the West, and secured oil and defence deals for British firms during talks with the Libyan leader in 2007 that were designed to pave the way for Megrahi’s release. Earlier this year the dictator’s son claimed that Blair had become an adviser to his father, securing a consultancy role with a state fund that manages Libya’s £65 billion oil wealth, although Blair’s office has denied this. In an interview, Saif Gadaffi described Blair as a “personal family friend” who had visited Libya “many, many times” since leaving Downing Street.
Last year Brown said he had been “angry” and “repulsed” by the triumphalist scenes in Tripoli when Megrahi was given a hero’s welcome after being freed. Brown said he had written to Gadaffi asking him to ensure that Megrahi was given a low-key reception. President Barack Obama and US relatives of the victims of the bomb also condemned the scenes.
In August it emerged that Cameron’s government had warned Libya that any celebration of the first anniversary of Megrahi’s release would be an affront to the victims’ families.
Foreign Office sources confirmed that British officials in Tripoli had urged Libya to show restraint with Megrahi’s funeral. A senior Foreign Office source said: “Given the events surrounding his return last year, our position would be that any repeat along those lines would be very insensitive.” (...)
The Foreign Office fears that Gadaffi intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark Megrahi’s imminent death from prostate cancer
Gordon Brown's government planned to use Tony Blair as a “lever of influence” to persuade Libya not to give the Lockerbie bomber a hero’s funeral, leaked documents reveal.
The Foreign Office fears that Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, who has declared Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi innocent of Britain’s worst terrorist attack, intends to hold a high-profile ceremony to mark his imminent death from prostate cancer.
Sources close to Megrahi’s family have claimed he is now in a coma and expected to die within days — although Scottish officials insist that he had been well enough to contact them recently.
David Cameron’s administration has warned the Libyans that a state funeral for the man given compassionate release from a Scottish prison last year would be deeply offensive to relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up above Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. (...)
Last week, a secret US government cable, published by WikiLeaks, described how the Foreign Office regarded Brown’s predecessor as its best hope to persuade Gadaffi not to hold a state funeral for Megrahi. The memo, dated February 25, reported that Philippa Saunders, the incoming Foreign Office director for north Africa, had told US diplomats that Britain regarded Libya’s plans for Megrahi’s funeral as “a major concern and one that HMG [Her Majesty’s government] continues to raise regularly”. It said the British embassy was “engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK levers of influence with Tripoli”, although it warned, “unfortunately, there aren’t too many”.
Saunders, the cable said, singled out Blair as someone who night be able to intervene. It added: “The effort partially originated from the assumption there will be maybe a 48-hour window if we’re lucky between Megrahi’s eventual death and a funeral and the [Foreign Office] wants to ensure HMG is in a position to act quickly.”
Blair helped rehabilitate Gadaffi’s regime in the eyes of the West, and secured oil and defence deals for British firms during talks with the Libyan leader in 2007 that were designed to pave the way for Megrahi’s release. Earlier this year the dictator’s son claimed that Blair had become an adviser to his father, securing a consultancy role with a state fund that manages Libya’s £65 billion oil wealth, although Blair’s office has denied this. In an interview, Saif Gadaffi described Blair as a “personal family friend” who had visited Libya “many, many times” since leaving Downing Street.
Last year Brown said he had been “angry” and “repulsed” by the triumphalist scenes in Tripoli when Megrahi was given a hero’s welcome after being freed. Brown said he had written to Gadaffi asking him to ensure that Megrahi was given a low-key reception. President Barack Obama and US relatives of the victims of the bomb also condemned the scenes.
In August it emerged that Cameron’s government had warned Libya that any celebration of the first anniversary of Megrahi’s release would be an affront to the victims’ families.
Foreign Office sources confirmed that British officials in Tripoli had urged Libya to show restraint with Megrahi’s funeral. A senior Foreign Office source said: “Given the events surrounding his return last year, our position would be that any repeat along those lines would be very insensitive.” (...)
Saturday, 11 December 2010
Official report into Lockerbie bombing blocked by authorities
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
The publication of an official, 800-page dossier detailing the Lockerbie bomber's grounds for appealing his conviction has been blocked by authorities.
The decision to keep the report secret has fuelled claims by families of victims of the terrorist attack that the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was rushed through to prevent his appeal, which was due to be heard in public, going ahead.
The blocking of the report follows revelations last week contained in leaked US diplomatic cables that Britain believed lucrative oil and finance deals with Libya would be scrapped if Megrahi died in jail.
The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that a call by [victims' relatives] for a public inquiry has been turned down by the [UK] Government.
In a letter, obtained by this paper, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, declared it would "not be in the public interest" to order such an inquiry.
Megrahi dramatically dropped his appeal last summer and was then told he would be released from prison on compassionate grounds. (...)
The report into his conviction conducted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which looks into alleged miscarriages of justice, will remain locked away after Megrahi, the police, and other authorities could not agree on its publication.
All parties involved have to give 'unqualified consent' for it to be made public. It is not clear which parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself – vetoed its publication.
The SCCRC investigation is the most comprehensive into the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed in mainland Britain in which 270 people were murdered when Pan Am flight 103 blew up over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland on Dec 21, 1988.
The main report runs to more than 800 pages with a further 13 volumes of appendices.
Victims' families believe Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds only once he agreed to drop his appeal.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora was killed, said: "It appears the way had been prepared to enable Megrahi's release to take place before his appeal could be heard in full.
"The appeal could have overturned the verdict which would have been very embarrassing for authorities.
"There is a great deal the SCCRC knows which is not now being made available."
The SCCRC recommended in June 2007 that Megrahi should be granted a second appeal hearing following a four-year investigation into the case against him.
It identified six grounds "where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred" and referred the case to the court of appeal in Scotland. It includes evidence not made available to Megrahi's defence and which is still to be made public.
In a press release headed The Scottish Criminal Cases review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order, the SCCRC announced last week that it had not been able to obtain the consent of all the parties involved, including Megrahi, the Foreign Office and the police, to allow it to publish its report.
Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC's chief executive, said: "It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required ... and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time."
The Scottish Government said in a statement it would now look at altering legislation to try to "overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions".
But the crown office, the Scottish equivalent of the crown prosecution Service, said the SCCRC had spurned an invitation to help to obtain the necessary consent to enable the report to be published – a claim that has baffled the SCCRC but will further fuel speculation of a cover-up.
The intense frustration felt by victims over the dropping of the appeal is exacerbated by the Coalition's decision not to hold an independent inquiry. Families had repeatedly requested an inquiry during the Labour governments of the past 13 years but had hoped a change of Government might have also prompted a change of heart.
But in a letter to families, Mr Hague, said: "We have looked carefully into this issue, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the case. However, having reviewed this in detail the Government believes a public inquiry would not be in the public interest."
The publication of an official, 800-page dossier detailing the Lockerbie bomber's grounds for appealing his conviction has been blocked by authorities.
The decision to keep the report secret has fuelled claims by families of victims of the terrorist attack that the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was rushed through to prevent his appeal, which was due to be heard in public, going ahead.
The blocking of the report follows revelations last week contained in leaked US diplomatic cables that Britain believed lucrative oil and finance deals with Libya would be scrapped if Megrahi died in jail.
The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that a call by [victims' relatives] for a public inquiry has been turned down by the [UK] Government.
In a letter, obtained by this paper, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, declared it would "not be in the public interest" to order such an inquiry.
Megrahi dramatically dropped his appeal last summer and was then told he would be released from prison on compassionate grounds. (...)
The report into his conviction conducted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which looks into alleged miscarriages of justice, will remain locked away after Megrahi, the police, and other authorities could not agree on its publication.
All parties involved have to give 'unqualified consent' for it to be made public. It is not clear which parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself – vetoed its publication.
The SCCRC investigation is the most comprehensive into the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed in mainland Britain in which 270 people were murdered when Pan Am flight 103 blew up over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland on Dec 21, 1988.
The main report runs to more than 800 pages with a further 13 volumes of appendices.
Victims' families believe Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds only once he agreed to drop his appeal.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora was killed, said: "It appears the way had been prepared to enable Megrahi's release to take place before his appeal could be heard in full.
"The appeal could have overturned the verdict which would have been very embarrassing for authorities.
"There is a great deal the SCCRC knows which is not now being made available."
The SCCRC recommended in June 2007 that Megrahi should be granted a second appeal hearing following a four-year investigation into the case against him.
It identified six grounds "where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred" and referred the case to the court of appeal in Scotland. It includes evidence not made available to Megrahi's defence and which is still to be made public.
In a press release headed The Scottish Criminal Cases review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order, the SCCRC announced last week that it had not been able to obtain the consent of all the parties involved, including Megrahi, the Foreign Office and the police, to allow it to publish its report.
Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC's chief executive, said: "It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required ... and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time."
The Scottish Government said in a statement it would now look at altering legislation to try to "overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions".
But the crown office, the Scottish equivalent of the crown prosecution Service, said the SCCRC had spurned an invitation to help to obtain the necessary consent to enable the report to be published – a claim that has baffled the SCCRC but will further fuel speculation of a cover-up.
The intense frustration felt by victims over the dropping of the appeal is exacerbated by the Coalition's decision not to hold an independent inquiry. Families had repeatedly requested an inquiry during the Labour governments of the past 13 years but had hoped a change of Government might have also prompted a change of heart.
But in a letter to families, Mr Hague, said: "We have looked carefully into this issue, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the case. However, having reviewed this in detail the Government believes a public inquiry would not be in the public interest."
It is imperative for the survivors of Lockerbie that we continue to search for the truth
[This is the heading over a letter from Ruth Marr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Professor James Mitchell is correct to praise the Scottish Government for refusing to be bullied and by taking the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but he is perhaps understandably pessimistic regarding getting answers to the questions which, almost 22 years later, continue to haunt the Lockerbie tragedy (“WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release”, The Herald, December 10).
However, it is absolutely imperative for the sake of the families of the victims, for the town of Lockerbie, for all who care about the Scottish justice system and, indeed, for Megrahi, that we probe to get the relevant answers, because until we do, all those whose lives were changed for ever by that horrific crime cannot hope to try to move on.
Father Pat Keegans, who narrowly escaped death at Lockerbie, has concisely and poignantly summed up the situation when he said: “We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.” It is for those reasons that a full, independent public inquiry must be held to determine all the facts, and answer the many troubling questions surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the conviction of Megrahi for the crime.
All those lost at Lockerbie, and those they left behind, deserve nothing less than truth and justice, and we must not fail them now.
[A further letter in the same newspaper from John Scott Roy reads as follows:]
What a refreshing article by Professor James Mitchell in which he summarises many of the reasons for people to distrust politicians as a group. Their cynical behaviour is well exposed by the examples he provides.
The SNP Government is praised, to some extent. It has not been in power long enough for the infection to have taken full root.
Professor James Mitchell is correct to praise the Scottish Government for refusing to be bullied and by taking the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but he is perhaps understandably pessimistic regarding getting answers to the questions which, almost 22 years later, continue to haunt the Lockerbie tragedy (“WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release”, The Herald, December 10).
However, it is absolutely imperative for the sake of the families of the victims, for the town of Lockerbie, for all who care about the Scottish justice system and, indeed, for Megrahi, that we probe to get the relevant answers, because until we do, all those whose lives were changed for ever by that horrific crime cannot hope to try to move on.
Father Pat Keegans, who narrowly escaped death at Lockerbie, has concisely and poignantly summed up the situation when he said: “We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.” It is for those reasons that a full, independent public inquiry must be held to determine all the facts, and answer the many troubling questions surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the conviction of Megrahi for the crime.
All those lost at Lockerbie, and those they left behind, deserve nothing less than truth and justice, and we must not fail them now.
[A further letter in the same newspaper from John Scott Roy reads as follows:]
What a refreshing article by Professor James Mitchell in which he summarises many of the reasons for people to distrust politicians as a group. Their cynical behaviour is well exposed by the examples he provides.
The SNP Government is praised, to some extent. It has not been in power long enough for the infection to have taken full root.
Lockerbie: The scandal of the decade?
[This is the headline over an article by former G W Bush speechwriter David Frum in The Week magazine. It reads in part:]
The WikiLeaks cables offer more evidence the British government was complicit in the release of the Pan Am bomber
The defeated British Labour government has now been thoroughly caught in its lies about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. (...)
The official story was that the decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was made in Scotland and had nothing to do with London. Indeed, the story went, the Labour government in Westminster could not possibly have been more distressed by the release, after just eight years in prison, of a convicted mass murder.
Turns out, of course, that's not the real story. (...)
The al-Megrahi story could be the scandal of the decade. Of the 259 people murdered over Lockerbie, 190 were American citizens. It took a decade of hard diplomatic work to bring the man directly responsible for those deaths to justice. If the cables are correct, the Al-Megrahi release was not some aberration of the local Scottish government, with which London had nothing to do. Instead, our British ally was subjected to intense commercial pressure to release Al-Megrahi, apparently acquiesced, and then stone-facedly denied itsr own role. Nothing to do with them, utterly beyond their control, terribly sorry old boy.
Here's how the UK government characterized the release at the time, again as reported by The Guardian. "Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports that the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are "wholly untrue." He denied a "back door deal" was done to transfer Megrahi because of UK trade talks with the Libyan government." Even at the time, that story looked dodgy. Here's the next sentence from the same news account: "Letters leaked to a newspaper show Mr. Straw agreed not to exclude [Megrahi] from a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of 'overwhelming national interests'." By the way, six weeks after Straw changed his mind about the handling of Megrahi's case in 2007, BP gained a huge oil deal in Libya.
WikiLeaks does not add any new proof to the case that the British ministers misled the world about the Megrahi release. What the leaks do show is that neither the US government nor the British government itself ever believed the misrepresentations. So that's some comfort: a mass murderer may have gone free, but at least nobody in authority duped themselves over what had happened. Just the voters. Actually on second thought, the voters were not duped either. We all knew, and now the truth of what leaders knew has been exposed for all to see.
[Apart from the typical US purblindness with respect to the shakiness of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction, this is a pretty accurate encapsulation of the UK government's attitude and role in relation to his repatriation.]
The WikiLeaks cables offer more evidence the British government was complicit in the release of the Pan Am bomber
The defeated British Labour government has now been thoroughly caught in its lies about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. (...)
The official story was that the decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was made in Scotland and had nothing to do with London. Indeed, the story went, the Labour government in Westminster could not possibly have been more distressed by the release, after just eight years in prison, of a convicted mass murder.
Turns out, of course, that's not the real story. (...)
The al-Megrahi story could be the scandal of the decade. Of the 259 people murdered over Lockerbie, 190 were American citizens. It took a decade of hard diplomatic work to bring the man directly responsible for those deaths to justice. If the cables are correct, the Al-Megrahi release was not some aberration of the local Scottish government, with which London had nothing to do. Instead, our British ally was subjected to intense commercial pressure to release Al-Megrahi, apparently acquiesced, and then stone-facedly denied itsr own role. Nothing to do with them, utterly beyond their control, terribly sorry old boy.
Here's how the UK government characterized the release at the time, again as reported by The Guardian. "Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports that the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are "wholly untrue." He denied a "back door deal" was done to transfer Megrahi because of UK trade talks with the Libyan government." Even at the time, that story looked dodgy. Here's the next sentence from the same news account: "Letters leaked to a newspaper show Mr. Straw agreed not to exclude [Megrahi] from a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of 'overwhelming national interests'." By the way, six weeks after Straw changed his mind about the handling of Megrahi's case in 2007, BP gained a huge oil deal in Libya.
WikiLeaks does not add any new proof to the case that the British ministers misled the world about the Megrahi release. What the leaks do show is that neither the US government nor the British government itself ever believed the misrepresentations. So that's some comfort: a mass murderer may have gone free, but at least nobody in authority duped themselves over what had happened. Just the voters. Actually on second thought, the voters were not duped either. We all knew, and now the truth of what leaders knew has been exposed for all to see.
[Apart from the typical US purblindness with respect to the shakiness of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction, this is a pretty accurate encapsulation of the UK government's attitude and role in relation to his repatriation.]
Friday, 10 December 2010
WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an opinion piece in today's edition of The Herald by Professor James Mitchell, head of the School of Government and Public Policy, Strathclyde University. It reads in part:]
We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.
But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.
The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.
It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.
While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.
Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda. (...)
UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.
Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.
He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.
We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.
But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.
The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.
It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.
While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.
Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda. (...)
UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.
Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.
He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
SCCRC fails to get consents necessary for disclosure
[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009.
The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.
Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said:
“As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
"Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.
"It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.
"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
[As Mr Sinclair correctly indicates in the last sentence of his statement, the condition in the 2009 Order that the consent of suppliers of information had to be obtained is one which the Scottish Government in making the Order was under no legal obligation to impose. It CHOSE to do so -- one wonders why. Pressure should now be applied on the Scottish Government to vary the Order by removing this superfluous requirement.
The relevant portions of the primary legislation [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended] under which the 2009 Order was made read as follows:]
194K Exceptions from obligation of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information ... is excepted from section 194J [Offence of disclosure] of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed ... --
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) ... above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
[The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just posted a report on this matter on its website.
The Scottish Government has issued the following statement:]
The Scottish Government welcomes the efforts made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case and has accepted that release has not been possible within the constraints of the current legislation. The Scottish Government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible, and so is now considering primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected by the statement of reasons.
[As I have stated above, primary legislation is not necessary. All that is required is a further Statutory Instrument amending the 2009 Order. Is the Scottish Government resorting to delaying tactics in proposing primary legislation? Perish the thought!]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009.
The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.
Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said:
“As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
"Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.
"It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.
"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
[As Mr Sinclair correctly indicates in the last sentence of his statement, the condition in the 2009 Order that the consent of suppliers of information had to be obtained is one which the Scottish Government in making the Order was under no legal obligation to impose. It CHOSE to do so -- one wonders why. Pressure should now be applied on the Scottish Government to vary the Order by removing this superfluous requirement.
The relevant portions of the primary legislation [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended] under which the 2009 Order was made read as follows:]
194K Exceptions from obligation of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information ... is excepted from section 194J [Offence of disclosure] of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed ... --
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) ... above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
[The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just posted a report on this matter on its website.
The Scottish Government has issued the following statement:]
The Scottish Government welcomes the efforts made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case and has accepted that release has not been possible within the constraints of the current legislation. The Scottish Government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible, and so is now considering primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected by the statement of reasons.
[As I have stated above, primary legislation is not necessary. All that is required is a further Statutory Instrument amending the 2009 Order. Is the Scottish Government resorting to delaying tactics in proposing primary legislation? Perish the thought!]
Families: Megrahi's release a business deal
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
The families of US Lockerbie victims say revelations on whistleblowing website WikiLeaks about Libyan inducements to secure Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release show it was a "business deal". (...)
Cables from US diplomatic staff contain claims that Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt trade deals with Britain if Megrahi died in jail - and that senior diplomats feared reprisals on British citizens.
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick died in the bombing, said: "It's exactly what we said all along. The UK and Scots totally caved in because they need Libyan oil.
"It has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with anything else except business - and business trumps."
Of the Scottish ministers, he added: "For whatever reason, whether they were pressured by Gaddafi or by the Brits, they clearly violated their own law by letting someone go on compassionate (grounds] who had at least two years to live, when compassionate release is three months left."
Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter was also among the victims, said: "It's obvious what it was and there's no great surprises here.
"All it does is give us more proof, and we've already had a lot, that that's what it was - a business deal.
"You should be ashamed in Scotland because nothing else mattered, nothing about your legal system."
But ministers insist the decision was based purely on the Scots justice system.
Mr Salmond said the cables "vindicated" their position and everything they had said publicly and privately at the time.
"We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did," he said. (...)
But Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said the leaks indicate that Mr Salmond was behind the decision.
"It looks as though the Scottish Government was at least thought by the US ambassador in London to be considering compassionate release at an early stage," he said.
Dr Swire, who visited Megrahi around this time and believes he is innocent, said he was not ill enough at this stage for compassionate release to be a possibility. I think its very interesting that a letter from that date should be suggesting compassionate release that early."
WikiLeaks have also "firmed up" suspicions that the ultimate decision to release Megrahi was not taken by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, according to Dr Swire.
He said: "It's pretty clear that he was operating under the advice of Salmond." (...) [RB: The cable in which the US ambassador says (on the basis of what he was told by a FCO civil servant reporting what Jack Straw said he was told by Alex Salmond -- hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay) is dated 24 October 2008, just shortly after Megrahi's diagnosis and more than six months before any application was made for prisoner transfer and eight months before an application was made for compassionate release. The cable provides no evidence at all that when eventually decisions had to be made more than six months later, and after Scottish Government lawyers had had a chance to give advice on law and procedure, anyone other than the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took those decisions.]
According to the leaked diplomatic documents, Mr Salmond told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August this year that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not . . . He said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish Government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
The leaks claim to show the UK Government feared harsh action by Libya against British interests if Megrahi died in prison.
Former UK justice secretary Jack Straw also said the revelations had no connection to the final decision.
"Both Alex Salmond and the British government have said until they're blue in the face what is true - that this was a decision which was made by the Scottish Government, and by nobody else, " Mr Straw said.
[A somewhat similar article appears in today's edition of the Daily Mail. The Times concentrates on the supposed involvement of Alex Salmond in the decision. The Daily Telegraph runs an odd story about a proposed Swiss deal to have Megrahi transferred from Greenock Prison to a prison in Switzerland.
The Sun has a report to the effect that Megrahi is on life support, is unable to communicate and is near death. The BBC Scotland Good Morning Scotland programme reported today that a family member had confirmed this to their correspondent in Tripoli.]
The families of US Lockerbie victims say revelations on whistleblowing website WikiLeaks about Libyan inducements to secure Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release show it was a "business deal". (...)
Cables from US diplomatic staff contain claims that Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt trade deals with Britain if Megrahi died in jail - and that senior diplomats feared reprisals on British citizens.
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick died in the bombing, said: "It's exactly what we said all along. The UK and Scots totally caved in because they need Libyan oil.
"It has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with anything else except business - and business trumps."
Of the Scottish ministers, he added: "For whatever reason, whether they were pressured by Gaddafi or by the Brits, they clearly violated their own law by letting someone go on compassionate (grounds] who had at least two years to live, when compassionate release is three months left."
Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter was also among the victims, said: "It's obvious what it was and there's no great surprises here.
"All it does is give us more proof, and we've already had a lot, that that's what it was - a business deal.
"You should be ashamed in Scotland because nothing else mattered, nothing about your legal system."
But ministers insist the decision was based purely on the Scots justice system.
Mr Salmond said the cables "vindicated" their position and everything they had said publicly and privately at the time.
"We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did," he said. (...)
But Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said the leaks indicate that Mr Salmond was behind the decision.
"It looks as though the Scottish Government was at least thought by the US ambassador in London to be considering compassionate release at an early stage," he said.
Dr Swire, who visited Megrahi around this time and believes he is innocent, said he was not ill enough at this stage for compassionate release to be a possibility. I think its very interesting that a letter from that date should be suggesting compassionate release that early."
WikiLeaks have also "firmed up" suspicions that the ultimate decision to release Megrahi was not taken by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, according to Dr Swire.
He said: "It's pretty clear that he was operating under the advice of Salmond." (...) [RB: The cable in which the US ambassador says (on the basis of what he was told by a FCO civil servant reporting what Jack Straw said he was told by Alex Salmond -- hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay) is dated 24 October 2008, just shortly after Megrahi's diagnosis and more than six months before any application was made for prisoner transfer and eight months before an application was made for compassionate release. The cable provides no evidence at all that when eventually decisions had to be made more than six months later, and after Scottish Government lawyers had had a chance to give advice on law and procedure, anyone other than the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took those decisions.]
According to the leaked diplomatic documents, Mr Salmond told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August this year that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not . . . He said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish Government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
The leaks claim to show the UK Government feared harsh action by Libya against British interests if Megrahi died in prison.
Former UK justice secretary Jack Straw also said the revelations had no connection to the final decision.
"Both Alex Salmond and the British government have said until they're blue in the face what is true - that this was a decision which was made by the Scottish Government, and by nobody else, " Mr Straw said.
[A somewhat similar article appears in today's edition of the Daily Mail. The Times concentrates on the supposed involvement of Alex Salmond in the decision. The Daily Telegraph runs an odd story about a proposed Swiss deal to have Megrahi transferred from Greenock Prison to a prison in Switzerland.
The Sun has a report to the effect that Megrahi is on life support, is unable to communicate and is near death. The BBC Scotland Good Morning Scotland programme reported today that a family member had confirmed this to their correspondent in Tripoli.]
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
The First Minister on the Megrahi cables
[The following are excerpts from a report recently published on The Guardian website. Although Alex Salmond's remarks were made on a BBC radio programme, this account is fuller than what appears on the BBC News website.]
The allegations were dismissed by the Scottish government as "diplomatic tittle tattle". Salmond said: "We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did." (...)
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, also report Salmond telling the US consul to Edinburgh that the Libyans had offered him "a parade of treats" if Megrahi was released early, "all of which were turned down". It was denied today that such offers were made.
Salmond told the BBC: "Frankly I don't believe anybody seriously believes that the Scottish government acted in anything other than the precepts of Scots justice. And incidentally this information – as opposed to what it suggests perhaps about other people – vindicates and bears out that position."
Asked whether it now seemed right to have released Megrahi – who was said to have only three months to live but is still alive 16 months later – Salmond said: "I'm sorry, that's not the law. The law of Scotland is that a reasonable estimate is provided by senior medical officers and then acted upon by ministers, under the advice of the parole board, the prison service and a range of other interests. That's what was done."
Of the Guardian's revelations, Salmond said: "At the time you'll remember the UK government gave the impression that they either had no opinion on the release of Mr Megrahi or had no other factors concerned. I would have thought that the most interesting thing about this information is it shows that the UK government at the time – that's the then Labour government – were extremely keen to have Mr Megrahi released. Now, I've said this all along."
He went on: "We were clearly the only ones playing with a straight bat and interested in applying the precepts of Scottish justice, which we continue to do and continue to uphold.
"The cables confirm what we always said – that our only interest was taking a justice decision based on Scots law without fear or favour, which was exactly what was done, and that our public position was identical to our private one.
"They also show that the former UK government were playing false on the issue, with a different public position from their private one – which must be deeply embarrassing for the Labour party in Scotland – and that the US government was fully aware of the pressure being applied to the UK government."
The allegations were dismissed by the Scottish government as "diplomatic tittle tattle". Salmond said: "We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did." (...)
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, also report Salmond telling the US consul to Edinburgh that the Libyans had offered him "a parade of treats" if Megrahi was released early, "all of which were turned down". It was denied today that such offers were made.
Salmond told the BBC: "Frankly I don't believe anybody seriously believes that the Scottish government acted in anything other than the precepts of Scots justice. And incidentally this information – as opposed to what it suggests perhaps about other people – vindicates and bears out that position."
Asked whether it now seemed right to have released Megrahi – who was said to have only three months to live but is still alive 16 months later – Salmond said: "I'm sorry, that's not the law. The law of Scotland is that a reasonable estimate is provided by senior medical officers and then acted upon by ministers, under the advice of the parole board, the prison service and a range of other interests. That's what was done."
Of the Guardian's revelations, Salmond said: "At the time you'll remember the UK government gave the impression that they either had no opinion on the release of Mr Megrahi or had no other factors concerned. I would have thought that the most interesting thing about this information is it shows that the UK government at the time – that's the then Labour government – were extremely keen to have Mr Megrahi released. Now, I've said this all along."
He went on: "We were clearly the only ones playing with a straight bat and interested in applying the precepts of Scottish justice, which we continue to do and continue to uphold.
"The cables confirm what we always said – that our only interest was taking a justice decision based on Scots law without fear or favour, which was exactly what was done, and that our public position was identical to our private one.
"They also show that the former UK government were playing false on the issue, with a different public position from their private one – which must be deeply embarrassing for the Labour party in Scotland – and that the US government was fully aware of the pressure being applied to the UK government."
Media reaction to WikiLeaks Megrahi cables
There are no surprises in the coverage by the UK and Scottish media of the US diplomatic cables. The vast bulk of the media loathe and detest the Scottish National Party and all its works and so are keen to focus on criticism by US diplomats (and, through them, by UK diplomats and politicians) of the SNP Scottish Government. The opportunities for this are, however, somewhat limited since the cables make it clear that the UK Government (as this blog has maintained) was determined that, by hook or by crook, Megrahi should be repatriated, while the Scottish Government resisted both behind-the-scenes pressure and blandishments and approached the issue on the basis of the relevant legal provisions (though, no doubt, political considerations entered in to the surprising decision to link the two quite separate issues that were before the Justice Secretary -- the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer and Abdelbaset Megrahi's request for compassionate release; it was this quite unnecessary linkage that compelled Megrahi to abandon his appeal if he wished BOTH of them to remain live options).
In the mainstream media, useful reports can be found on the BBC News website; in The Independent; in The Times -- for those who have subscribed; and in The Scotsman. The Newsnet Scotland website has a good analysis by Alex Porter and a further report headed Labour agreed to help US lobby Scottish Government over Megrahi; and James Kelly's SCOT goes POP blog has an interesting commentary, as does Alex Massie's blog on The Spectator website.
The reaction of the First Minister Alex Salmond to the media brouhaha over the cables is to be found on the BBC News website.
In the mainstream media, useful reports can be found on the BBC News website; in The Independent; in The Times -- for those who have subscribed; and in The Scotsman. The Newsnet Scotland website has a good analysis by Alex Porter and a further report headed Labour agreed to help US lobby Scottish Government over Megrahi; and James Kelly's SCOT goes POP blog has an interesting commentary, as does Alex Massie's blog on The Spectator website.
The reaction of the First Minister Alex Salmond to the media brouhaha over the cables is to be found on the BBC News website.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
WikiLeaks cables: Lockerbie bomber freed after Gaddafi's 'thuggish' threats
[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
Megrahi case led to threats against UK's Libyan interests, while Scots who released him had turned down 'a parade of treats'
The British government's deep fears that Libya would take "harsh and immediate" action against UK interests if the convicted Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish prison are revealed in secret US embassy cables which show London's full support for the early release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Megrahi remained in jail, the cables show. At the same time "a parade of treats" was offered by Libya to the Scottish devolved administration if it agreed to let him go, though the cable says they were turned down.
Britain at the time was "in an awkward position" and "between a rock and a hard place". The London charge d'affaires, Richard LeBaron, wrote in a cable to Washington in October 2008. "The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."
This intelligence, the cable said, was confided to the US embassy by two British officials: Ben Lyons, in charge of north Africa for Downing Street, and Rob Dixon, his counterpart at the Foreign Office. (...)
The Megrahi cables may do much to explain why he was released in August 2009, supposedly because he was on the brink of death from prostate cancer. The decision incurred American wrath. More than a year on Megrahi is still alive, having been feted when he was escorted back to Tripoli by Gaddafi's son.
Public congressional hearings in September were told by a US prostate specialist that the official reason for the compassionate release – that Megrahi was within three months of death – was "ridiculous".
Anger with the British persists in some American circles, and UK ministers, Labour and Tory, have attempted to distance London from the release insisting it was purely a Scottish decision.
In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.
The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.
"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."
The British ambassador in Tripoli, Vincent Fean, "expressed relief" when Megrahi was released, the US reported.
"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,' Fean bluntly said."
Cretz cabled that "the regime remains essentially thuggish in its approach". He warned the US itself should keep quiet: "If the [US government] publicly opposes al-Megrahi's release or is perceived to be complicit in a decision to keep al-Megrahi in prison, [America's Libyan diplomatic] post judges that US interests could face similar consequences."
In the light of the repeated, politically unacceptable demands for Megrahi's release from Gaddafi, the illness at first seemed providential for Britain.
The cables reveal how the Scottish Nationalist first minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, was edged into taking the political heat for releasing Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer in September 2008. The message US diplomats received from Jack Straw, then justice minister, was that although Megrahi might survive up to five years, Labour's rivals in Scotland – Salmond and his SNP – were nonetheless inclined to release him.
A cable said: "Megrahi could have as long as five years to live but the average life expectancy of someone of his age with his condition is 18 months to two years. Doctors are not sure where he is on the time scale."The Libyans have not yet made a formal application for compassionate release … but HMG believes that the Scottish may be inclined to grant the request, when it comes, based on conversations between … Alex Salmond and UK justice secretary Jack Straw. Although the general practice is to grant compassionate release within three months of end of life, this is not codified in the law, so the release, if granted, could occur sooner."
The American diplomats were worried "Salmond and the SNP will look for opportunities to exploit the Megrahi case for their own advantage". But when the Scottish justice minister finally announced a "compassionate release" to a storm of protest the following August, the US ambassador said the Scots had got out of their depth.
"The Scottish government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision … Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was 'shocked'."
Salmond had told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not … he said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
Three days later Robin Naysmith, who served as the SNP's representative in Washington, said Salmond was shocked by the US outcry. "Naysmith underscored that Scotland received 'nothing' for releasing Megrahi, while the UK government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond's SNP and good relations with Libya."
SNP "comments were designed to blame the UK government for putting the Scots in a position to have to make a decision", according to civil servant Rob Dixon, talking to the Americans.
Washington's ambassador to London, Louis Susman, observed unsympathetically: "It is clear that the Scottish government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi's release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim." (...)
The other object of US suspicion was Tony Blair's 2007 visit to Libya as British prime minister. The trip was linked to oil and gas. The US embassy in Tripoli noted on 23 August 2009: "Rumours that Blair made linkages between Megrahi's release and trade deals have been longstanding among embassy contacts … the UK ambassador in Tripoli categorically denied the claims."In February this year UK diplomats told the US they were fretting about the prospect of an eventual hero's funeral for Megrahi. The new Foreign Office north Africa director, Philippa Saunders, "explained that fear over how Tripoli will handle Megrahi's eventual funeral remains a major concern".
She added: "The UK embassy is currently engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK 'levers of influence' with Tripoli. Unfortunately 'there aren't too many', although she mentioned Tony Blair and a private doctor who had a personal relationship with the Gaddafi family.
"There will be maybe a 48-hour window if we're lucky between Megrahi's eventual death and a funeral."
[The following are the relevant cables:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175039?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/189254?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/221905?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/220992
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/231792?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/222002?intcmp=239]
Megrahi case led to threats against UK's Libyan interests, while Scots who released him had turned down 'a parade of treats'
The British government's deep fears that Libya would take "harsh and immediate" action against UK interests if the convicted Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish prison are revealed in secret US embassy cables which show London's full support for the early release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Megrahi remained in jail, the cables show. At the same time "a parade of treats" was offered by Libya to the Scottish devolved administration if it agreed to let him go, though the cable says they were turned down.
Britain at the time was "in an awkward position" and "between a rock and a hard place". The London charge d'affaires, Richard LeBaron, wrote in a cable to Washington in October 2008. "The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."
This intelligence, the cable said, was confided to the US embassy by two British officials: Ben Lyons, in charge of north Africa for Downing Street, and Rob Dixon, his counterpart at the Foreign Office. (...)
The Megrahi cables may do much to explain why he was released in August 2009, supposedly because he was on the brink of death from prostate cancer. The decision incurred American wrath. More than a year on Megrahi is still alive, having been feted when he was escorted back to Tripoli by Gaddafi's son.
Public congressional hearings in September were told by a US prostate specialist that the official reason for the compassionate release – that Megrahi was within three months of death – was "ridiculous".
Anger with the British persists in some American circles, and UK ministers, Labour and Tory, have attempted to distance London from the release insisting it was purely a Scottish decision.
In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.
The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.
"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."
The British ambassador in Tripoli, Vincent Fean, "expressed relief" when Megrahi was released, the US reported.
"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,' Fean bluntly said."
Cretz cabled that "the regime remains essentially thuggish in its approach". He warned the US itself should keep quiet: "If the [US government] publicly opposes al-Megrahi's release or is perceived to be complicit in a decision to keep al-Megrahi in prison, [America's Libyan diplomatic] post judges that US interests could face similar consequences."
In the light of the repeated, politically unacceptable demands for Megrahi's release from Gaddafi, the illness at first seemed providential for Britain.
The cables reveal how the Scottish Nationalist first minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, was edged into taking the political heat for releasing Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer in September 2008. The message US diplomats received from Jack Straw, then justice minister, was that although Megrahi might survive up to five years, Labour's rivals in Scotland – Salmond and his SNP – were nonetheless inclined to release him.
A cable said: "Megrahi could have as long as five years to live but the average life expectancy of someone of his age with his condition is 18 months to two years. Doctors are not sure where he is on the time scale."The Libyans have not yet made a formal application for compassionate release … but HMG believes that the Scottish may be inclined to grant the request, when it comes, based on conversations between … Alex Salmond and UK justice secretary Jack Straw. Although the general practice is to grant compassionate release within three months of end of life, this is not codified in the law, so the release, if granted, could occur sooner."
The American diplomats were worried "Salmond and the SNP will look for opportunities to exploit the Megrahi case for their own advantage". But when the Scottish justice minister finally announced a "compassionate release" to a storm of protest the following August, the US ambassador said the Scots had got out of their depth.
"The Scottish government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision … Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was 'shocked'."
Salmond had told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not … he said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
Three days later Robin Naysmith, who served as the SNP's representative in Washington, said Salmond was shocked by the US outcry. "Naysmith underscored that Scotland received 'nothing' for releasing Megrahi, while the UK government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond's SNP and good relations with Libya."
SNP "comments were designed to blame the UK government for putting the Scots in a position to have to make a decision", according to civil servant Rob Dixon, talking to the Americans.
Washington's ambassador to London, Louis Susman, observed unsympathetically: "It is clear that the Scottish government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi's release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim." (...)
The other object of US suspicion was Tony Blair's 2007 visit to Libya as British prime minister. The trip was linked to oil and gas. The US embassy in Tripoli noted on 23 August 2009: "Rumours that Blair made linkages between Megrahi's release and trade deals have been longstanding among embassy contacts … the UK ambassador in Tripoli categorically denied the claims."In February this year UK diplomats told the US they were fretting about the prospect of an eventual hero's funeral for Megrahi. The new Foreign Office north Africa director, Philippa Saunders, "explained that fear over how Tripoli will handle Megrahi's eventual funeral remains a major concern".
She added: "The UK embassy is currently engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK 'levers of influence' with Tripoli. Unfortunately 'there aren't too many', although she mentioned Tony Blair and a private doctor who had a personal relationship with the Gaddafi family.
"There will be maybe a 48-hour window if we're lucky between Megrahi's eventual death and a funeral."
[The following are the relevant cables:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175039?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/189254?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/221905?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/220992
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/231792?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/222002?intcmp=239]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)