[The following is what is said by Charon QC in his (her?) blog review of 2010. It almost compensates for my omission from the sixty-third New Year Honours List in a row.]
And if you really want to get to grips with The Lockerbie Case…and it may be a good idea for US Senators to do so… then you can’t do much better than this… blog by Robert Black QC FRSE who became Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh in 1981 having previously been in practice at the Scots Bar.
Sunday, 2 January 2011
The justification of abuse
This is the headline over the latest article by Robert Forrester, secretary of Justice for Megrahi, on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The article addresses the concerns that were expressed in the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee about the constitutional propriety (separation of powers and all that) of asking the Scottish Government to set up an inquiry into the circumstances of, and justification for, a conviction handed down by a Scottish court. A similar concern was expressed in a comment on this blog in response to an earlier article by Mr Forrester.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
So what has changed?
[I wish a happy and peaceful 2011 to all readers of this blog.
What follows is a post from the blog from 1 January 2008.]
In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:
“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.
While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.
A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”
See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Alternative-take.3631585.jp
What follows is a post from the blog from 1 January 2008.]
In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:
“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.
While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.
A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”
See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Alternative-take.3631585.jp
Friday, 31 December 2010
Newsnet Scotland's review of Scottish news in 2010
[The following are excerpts relating to Lockerbie and Megrahi from Newsnet Scotland's "Scottish News in 2010 - A Look Back".]
July – Scottish News Stories:
It emerges that a number of US Senators have written a letter to the UK’s ambassador with concerns over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The ambassador informs the senators that much of what they understand is actually based on inaccurate UK newspaper reports. Only lazy journalists, fools and those with an agenda would run the senator’s claims without properly scrutinising them.
So it proves as the story is picked up by the UK media and BBC Scotland in particular and a long running campaign of misinformation begins.
August – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland reports that ‘US lawmakers’ are unhappy with the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. No the lawmakers aren’t Wyatt and Earl Earp, it is the same poorly informed US Senators from July and the BBC are keen to headline anything and everything they say, regardless of accuracy.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien defends the decision to release Megrahi and questions the appropriateness of US politicians attacking a decision that was based on compassion, something lacking in US penal institutions says the Cardinal.
September – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland continues to treat commentary from poorly informed American Senators over the Megrahi issue as though it had merit. Raymond Buchanan tells us that relations have been ‘harmed’ over what he calls a ‘senate Lockerbie investigation’.
December – Scottish News Stories:
Wikileaks documents exonerate the SNP over its handling of the Megrahi release process. The documents highlight the hypocrisy of the Labour party who were secretly trying to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya then publicly denounced the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. BBC Scotland further tarnished its reputation by ignoring the revelations that damaged Labour and instead focussed on comments from Jack Straw they said called into question MacAskill's claim that he alone took the final decision.
July – Scottish News Stories:
It emerges that a number of US Senators have written a letter to the UK’s ambassador with concerns over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The ambassador informs the senators that much of what they understand is actually based on inaccurate UK newspaper reports. Only lazy journalists, fools and those with an agenda would run the senator’s claims without properly scrutinising them.
So it proves as the story is picked up by the UK media and BBC Scotland in particular and a long running campaign of misinformation begins.
August – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland reports that ‘US lawmakers’ are unhappy with the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. No the lawmakers aren’t Wyatt and Earl Earp, it is the same poorly informed US Senators from July and the BBC are keen to headline anything and everything they say, regardless of accuracy.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien defends the decision to release Megrahi and questions the appropriateness of US politicians attacking a decision that was based on compassion, something lacking in US penal institutions says the Cardinal.
September – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland continues to treat commentary from poorly informed American Senators over the Megrahi issue as though it had merit. Raymond Buchanan tells us that relations have been ‘harmed’ over what he calls a ‘senate Lockerbie investigation’.
December – Scottish News Stories:
Wikileaks documents exonerate the SNP over its handling of the Megrahi release process. The documents highlight the hypocrisy of the Labour party who were secretly trying to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya then publicly denounced the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. BBC Scotland further tarnished its reputation by ignoring the revelations that damaged Labour and instead focussed on comments from Jack Straw they said called into question MacAskill's claim that he alone took the final decision.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
We must strive to restore the integrity of criminal justice process
[This is the heading over a letter from Glasgow Liberal Democrat councillor Christopher Mason in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
There is a worrying contradiction between the standards being applied in the cases of Tommy Sheridan and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Sheridan was prosecuted because perjury threatens the whole justice system; but the British and Scottish establishments are apparently indifferent to the doubts expressed about the integrity of Megrahi’s trial and, indeed, the second appeal process.
The crux of the criticisms is that neither the forensic evidence about the timer nor the identification evidence provided by the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci should have been accepted as sound. These criticisms are contained, we are led to believe, in the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which recommended in June 2007 that a second appeal should be heard. The second appeal process was stymied by the refusal of British and American authorities to allow some of the documents to be dealt with by the court in the normal manner; if it had been heard promptly it would have been disposed of one way or the other before Megrahi’s release on health grounds ever became an issue.
Without the forensic evidence and Gauci’s evidence, Megrahi and Fahima could not have been prosecuted. There are allegations that this evidence was tainted. I do not understand why those who thought the Scottish justice system was seriously threatened by perjured evidence in Sheridan’s civil case against a newspaper, cannot find a way of looking into our criminal justice system in relation to the allegation that the most important criminal trial of the 20th century proceeded on the basis of false evidence.
Although 22 years have passed since 270 innocent people were murdered by whomever planted the Lockerbie bomb, this is not just a matter of historical interest or even of justice for the families of the victims. In the continuing campaign to deal with terrorism, the known integrity of our justice system will be essential to success. That is one of the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from Northern Ireland: false convictions do more harm than good.
One of the best defences against the crime of terrorism is the known integrity of the normal criminal justice process. To restore public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system when dealing with terrorism, the Scottish Parliament should find some way of allowing the court to hear and dispose of the matters raised in the SCCRC 2007 report.
There is a worrying contradiction between the standards being applied in the cases of Tommy Sheridan and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Sheridan was prosecuted because perjury threatens the whole justice system; but the British and Scottish establishments are apparently indifferent to the doubts expressed about the integrity of Megrahi’s trial and, indeed, the second appeal process.
The crux of the criticisms is that neither the forensic evidence about the timer nor the identification evidence provided by the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci should have been accepted as sound. These criticisms are contained, we are led to believe, in the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which recommended in June 2007 that a second appeal should be heard. The second appeal process was stymied by the refusal of British and American authorities to allow some of the documents to be dealt with by the court in the normal manner; if it had been heard promptly it would have been disposed of one way or the other before Megrahi’s release on health grounds ever became an issue.
Without the forensic evidence and Gauci’s evidence, Megrahi and Fahima could not have been prosecuted. There are allegations that this evidence was tainted. I do not understand why those who thought the Scottish justice system was seriously threatened by perjured evidence in Sheridan’s civil case against a newspaper, cannot find a way of looking into our criminal justice system in relation to the allegation that the most important criminal trial of the 20th century proceeded on the basis of false evidence.
Although 22 years have passed since 270 innocent people were murdered by whomever planted the Lockerbie bomb, this is not just a matter of historical interest or even of justice for the families of the victims. In the continuing campaign to deal with terrorism, the known integrity of our justice system will be essential to success. That is one of the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from Northern Ireland: false convictions do more harm than good.
One of the best defences against the crime of terrorism is the known integrity of the normal criminal justice process. To restore public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system when dealing with terrorism, the Scottish Parliament should find some way of allowing the court to hear and dispose of the matters raised in the SCCRC 2007 report.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Befuddlement and anger at Scottish Government’s stance
[A long article by Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, appears today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It raises many interesting issues about the recent report by Senator Robert Menendez et al into the repatriation of Abdebaset Megrahi and about official reaction to JFM's call for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into his conviction. On the Scottish Government's stonewalling on the establishment of such an inquiry, Mr Forrester has this to say:]
SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.
On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.
It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off.
SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.
On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.
It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off.
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
We should stop distracting ourselves from finding out the real truth about Lockerbie
[This is the heading over three letters in today's edition of The Herald. They read as follows:]
How well Jim Swire’s dignified search for truth contrasts with the bloodthirsty baying of some American politicians (Letters, December 24). Make no mistake, the central objection to the Megrahi affair in the United States is that he was tried in a justice system where the end result was not a lethal injection; everything else is just an attempt to build on that.
The modus operandi of the Senate inquiry was to reach a conclusion and then look for evidence that might support it, exactly what an American trial of Megrahi would likely have been. For some Scottish politicians to attempt to lend credibility to this circus for some short-term political gain is extremely unedifying and something that they should be ashamed of.
The question should not be whether Megrahi’s family should be able to be with him for his last days but whether he was guilty at all and if so who his accomplices were. To simply accept what now seems to be a rather shaky conviction is one thing, to not bother to ask whether one man could do all of this on his own is quite another. It is no conspiracy theory to point out that atrocities like Lockerbie are carefully planned and executed and not just the work of one rogue security agent. We should stop distracting ourselves from this central question.
Iain Paterson
Jim Swire has written a moving and passionate letter in which he continues to plead eloquently for some way to be found to re-examine the evidence and the decision of the Camp Zeist trial. After more than 20 years, the tragedy of the PanAm 103 bombing has still not been resolved satisfactorily, and the latest pathetic attempt by a group of ill-informed and prejudiced US senators, with little knowledge or appreciation of the points at issue, will not help.
We in Scotland should be much more concerned about the quality, reliability and fairness of the Scottish justice system. As pointed out by Nigel Dewar Gibb, comments such as those from John Lamont, the Tory MSP shadow spokesman, are unhelpful, as are the constant refusals of the UK government and the Scottish legal authorities to allow further investigation.
I learned my Scots Law, and my pride and confidence in the Scottish justice system, at the feet of Andrew Dewar Gibb, Professor of Scots Law at Glasgow University (coincidentally the father of Nigel Dewar Gibb). If he were alive today I am sure Professor Dewar Gibb would be adding his voice to those demanding a full public inquiry or a re-opening of the second appeal abandoned by Mr Megrahi so abruptly. Nothing less will satisfy those of us who wish justice to be done and seen to be done.
Iain A D Mann
Once again the consistently impressive and humbling Jim Swire hits on the salient point about the Lockerbie atrocity. It is a disgrace that we do not know for certain who carried out this crime, or why. We have been given serious doubts by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to question the truth surrounding the conviction of Mr Megrahi. The vacuous critical noises from politicians in this country and the US regarding the release of Megrahi are opportunistic political point scoring or, worse, an attempt to create a smoke screen around the real issues of guilt and responsibility.
Iain Carmichael
How well Jim Swire’s dignified search for truth contrasts with the bloodthirsty baying of some American politicians (Letters, December 24). Make no mistake, the central objection to the Megrahi affair in the United States is that he was tried in a justice system where the end result was not a lethal injection; everything else is just an attempt to build on that.
The modus operandi of the Senate inquiry was to reach a conclusion and then look for evidence that might support it, exactly what an American trial of Megrahi would likely have been. For some Scottish politicians to attempt to lend credibility to this circus for some short-term political gain is extremely unedifying and something that they should be ashamed of.
The question should not be whether Megrahi’s family should be able to be with him for his last days but whether he was guilty at all and if so who his accomplices were. To simply accept what now seems to be a rather shaky conviction is one thing, to not bother to ask whether one man could do all of this on his own is quite another. It is no conspiracy theory to point out that atrocities like Lockerbie are carefully planned and executed and not just the work of one rogue security agent. We should stop distracting ourselves from this central question.
Iain Paterson
Jim Swire has written a moving and passionate letter in which he continues to plead eloquently for some way to be found to re-examine the evidence and the decision of the Camp Zeist trial. After more than 20 years, the tragedy of the PanAm 103 bombing has still not been resolved satisfactorily, and the latest pathetic attempt by a group of ill-informed and prejudiced US senators, with little knowledge or appreciation of the points at issue, will not help.
We in Scotland should be much more concerned about the quality, reliability and fairness of the Scottish justice system. As pointed out by Nigel Dewar Gibb, comments such as those from John Lamont, the Tory MSP shadow spokesman, are unhelpful, as are the constant refusals of the UK government and the Scottish legal authorities to allow further investigation.
I learned my Scots Law, and my pride and confidence in the Scottish justice system, at the feet of Andrew Dewar Gibb, Professor of Scots Law at Glasgow University (coincidentally the father of Nigel Dewar Gibb). If he were alive today I am sure Professor Dewar Gibb would be adding his voice to those demanding a full public inquiry or a re-opening of the second appeal abandoned by Mr Megrahi so abruptly. Nothing less will satisfy those of us who wish justice to be done and seen to be done.
Iain A D Mann
Once again the consistently impressive and humbling Jim Swire hits on the salient point about the Lockerbie atrocity. It is a disgrace that we do not know for certain who carried out this crime, or why. We have been given serious doubts by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to question the truth surrounding the conviction of Mr Megrahi. The vacuous critical noises from politicians in this country and the US regarding the release of Megrahi are opportunistic political point scoring or, worse, an attempt to create a smoke screen around the real issues of guilt and responsibility.
Iain Carmichael
Two contrasting perspectives
In today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle there is an article by conservative columnist Debra J Saunders headlined "Libya, Lockerbie and commercial warfare". It swallows hook, line and sinker the fantasies peddled by Senator Menendez et al in their report on the release of Megrahi.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Waiting for answers two decades later
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by columnist Mike Kelly on the website of The Record, a newspaper covering Bergen County, New Jersey. The first three and the last five paragraphs read as follows:]
Almost a quarter century ago, a terrorist bomb blew apart Pam Am Flight 103 in the icy December sky over Scotland, killing all 259 passengers, including 38 from New Jersey. Sadly, we’re still searching for the complete truth.
The latest effort to pin down the facts comes from the four US senators from New Jersey and New York. But their report, released last week, while laudable in some ways nevertheless still leaves open too many questions.
Maybe it’s politics or maybe it’s just the weird and frustrating jinx that has hampered almost every attempt to examine the Pan Am 103 bombing, but this kind of incomplete investigative work is getting tiresome. The Pan Am 103 bombing took place Dec 21, 1988 – with many of the college-age passengers flying home for the Christmas holidays from studying overseas. It’s time for some hard answers. (...)
From almost the moment that Pan Am 103 fell from the sky 22 years ago, the attempt by the US government to find answers has been a series of political brick walls. Families of some New Jersey victims were so angry with responses from President George H Bush in 1989 that they marched to the White House and placed letters in the fence.
I was there that day. Watching decent Americans try to persuade their government to provide answers about why their kids were murdered was a sad sight.
But that sad journey for answers continued through the Clinton administration and into the second Bush administration – and now, apparently, with Obama.
This latest report does not alter that journey.
In some ways, it makes the pain worse.
Almost a quarter century ago, a terrorist bomb blew apart Pam Am Flight 103 in the icy December sky over Scotland, killing all 259 passengers, including 38 from New Jersey. Sadly, we’re still searching for the complete truth.
The latest effort to pin down the facts comes from the four US senators from New Jersey and New York. But their report, released last week, while laudable in some ways nevertheless still leaves open too many questions.
Maybe it’s politics or maybe it’s just the weird and frustrating jinx that has hampered almost every attempt to examine the Pan Am 103 bombing, but this kind of incomplete investigative work is getting tiresome. The Pan Am 103 bombing took place Dec 21, 1988 – with many of the college-age passengers flying home for the Christmas holidays from studying overseas. It’s time for some hard answers. (...)
From almost the moment that Pan Am 103 fell from the sky 22 years ago, the attempt by the US government to find answers has been a series of political brick walls. Families of some New Jersey victims were so angry with responses from President George H Bush in 1989 that they marched to the White House and placed letters in the fence.
I was there that day. Watching decent Americans try to persuade their government to provide answers about why their kids were murdered was a sad sight.
But that sad journey for answers continued through the Clinton administration and into the second Bush administration – and now, apparently, with Obama.
This latest report does not alter that journey.
In some ways, it makes the pain worse.
Megrahi verdict is the key issue
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
[T]here is a far more important issue than questions about the release of Megrahi, found guilty at Zeist of the Lockerbie bombing.
For so many who have heard and studied the evidence led against him, and the performance of his defence team in that court, the verdict looked untenable under any recognisable form of Scottish criminal law. It is hard to believe that a Scottish jury could ever have convicted him. Could 15 sufficiently naive Scots have been found? I doubt it.
"Reasonable doubt" was left unanswered at so many points, yet it is supposed to be necessary to exclude it entirely before a criminal guilty verdict is reached. He was not securely identified as the buyer of clothes in Malta, nor was there any proof that he breached security at Malta airport. It was only afterwards that we learned of the break-in at Heathrow, a far more likely route to the doomed plane's hold than Malta ever was. Only afterwards did we learn that the Scottish investigating police knew before the case came to court that the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci who "thought Megrahi looked like the clothes buyer" and, who was a key witness, knew that Megrahi's conviction would land him a prize of $2,000,000. Why did the police not tell the court that?
Let's review the verdict and see if it stands, rather than continue to rabbit on about his release which many, myself included, think was the right and responsible move for Kenny MacAskill to make.
If all the commentators on this ghastly case had been crammed into the court's public gallery, I think they would be raging for a review of the verdict, not endlessly discussing his release. If the verdict was unjust, as so many believe, what must the real culprits think of Scotland now? Some of us want to be sure about who killed all those people. It's Scotland's call.
[T]here is a far more important issue than questions about the release of Megrahi, found guilty at Zeist of the Lockerbie bombing.
For so many who have heard and studied the evidence led against him, and the performance of his defence team in that court, the verdict looked untenable under any recognisable form of Scottish criminal law. It is hard to believe that a Scottish jury could ever have convicted him. Could 15 sufficiently naive Scots have been found? I doubt it.
"Reasonable doubt" was left unanswered at so many points, yet it is supposed to be necessary to exclude it entirely before a criminal guilty verdict is reached. He was not securely identified as the buyer of clothes in Malta, nor was there any proof that he breached security at Malta airport. It was only afterwards that we learned of the break-in at Heathrow, a far more likely route to the doomed plane's hold than Malta ever was. Only afterwards did we learn that the Scottish investigating police knew before the case came to court that the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci who "thought Megrahi looked like the clothes buyer" and, who was a key witness, knew that Megrahi's conviction would land him a prize of $2,000,000. Why did the police not tell the court that?
Let's review the verdict and see if it stands, rather than continue to rabbit on about his release which many, myself included, think was the right and responsible move for Kenny MacAskill to make.
If all the commentators on this ghastly case had been crammed into the court's public gallery, I think they would be raging for a review of the verdict, not endlessly discussing his release. If the verdict was unjust, as so many believe, what must the real culprits think of Scotland now? Some of us want to be sure about who killed all those people. It's Scotland's call.
Saturday, 25 December 2010
The dangers of over-classification
[This is the heading over a post by Oliver Miles (former UK ambassador to Libya) on the London Review of Books blog. It reads in part:]
For the most part [in the WikiLeaks cables] we see able, professional diplomats doing their best to understand and report on the places where they’re stationed, as anyone familiar with the State Department would expect. Those I have looked at (mostly from or concerning the Middle East) are classified up to ‘secret’, which is supposed to mean the information in them would cause ‘grave damage’ to national security if made public. One lesson is that over-classification, which is a form of bad security, is even more prevalent in the State Department today than it was in the British diplomatic service when I served in it. The most recent cables are a few months old. Most of the information in them, though of interest to specialists, is not particularly new.
One report which does contain some new information was sent from the US embassy in Libya in December 2009, giving details of discussions with the Libyans about possible arms sales – though evidence that the US was considering such deals was already in the public domain, for example in the list of members on the website of the US-Libya Business Association. It’s amusing that these US-Libyan discussions took place at the same time as – and are much wider in scope than – British-Libyan discussions on the same subject, produced as evidence of a corrupt relationship in the recent report by four US senators on the Megrahi affair.
For the most part [in the WikiLeaks cables] we see able, professional diplomats doing their best to understand and report on the places where they’re stationed, as anyone familiar with the State Department would expect. Those I have looked at (mostly from or concerning the Middle East) are classified up to ‘secret’, which is supposed to mean the information in them would cause ‘grave damage’ to national security if made public. One lesson is that over-classification, which is a form of bad security, is even more prevalent in the State Department today than it was in the British diplomatic service when I served in it. The most recent cables are a few months old. Most of the information in them, though of interest to specialists, is not particularly new.
One report which does contain some new information was sent from the US embassy in Libya in December 2009, giving details of discussions with the Libyans about possible arms sales – though evidence that the US was considering such deals was already in the public domain, for example in the list of members on the website of the US-Libya Business Association. It’s amusing that these US-Libyan discussions took place at the same time as – and are much wider in scope than – British-Libyan discussions on the same subject, produced as evidence of a corrupt relationship in the recent report by four US senators on the Megrahi affair.
Friday, 24 December 2010
We must not be afraid to pursue the truth about the bombing of PanAm Flight 103
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Swissair 1970, Pan Am 1988?
On the website of the Swiss magazine Beobachter there is a long article drawing parallels between the destruction of a Swissair aircraft en route from Zürich to Tel Aviv in 1970 and the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988. Apparently the Lockerbie investigators were so struck by the similarities that they spent a considerable time conferring with the Swiss. However, as we know, the focus of the Lockerbie investigation eventually switched from Palestinian terrorist groups to Libya. The Beobachter article sets out why this might have been a mistake. The article, in German, can be read here.
Wikipedia's article on the crash of Swissair Flight 330 at Würenlingen can be read here.
Wikipedia's article on the crash of Swissair Flight 330 at Würenlingen can be read here.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
This Lockerbie bomber nonsense shows US senators have lost the plot
The US Senate's conspiracy theory about Megrahi shows just how ignorant it is of British politics, writes Alan Cochrane.
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
'Bonkers' US claim on bomber
[This is the headline over the report in The Sun on the four US senators' report on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)