[This is the headline over the report in today's edition of The Herald on the claim by the former Libyan justice minister that Colonel Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. It reads in part:]
Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who resigned on Monday amid violent clashes between protesters and security forces, said: “I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie.”
Mr Abdel-Jalil, who has not revealed yet what the proof is, quit over the “excessive use of force” used against demonstrators during anti-regime uprisings across the north African state.
The Scottish Government said yesterday it never doubted the safety of the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al Megrahi, 58, who was controversially freed from prison on compassionate grounds in August 2009 as he was suffering from prostate cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix, from the group UK Families Flight 103, who lost her brother Peter in the bombing, said of the latest development: “If this is true, it is shocking. It really rocks to the core the way that the UK Government has dealt with the whole Lockerbie issue, which is to sweep it under the carpet.
“It is really incredible. I would be really interested to know what evidence he has got. Perhaps he is trying to ingratiate himself with the US.”
Ms Dix also called for a fresh investigation into the bombing in light of the claims.
She said: “If he has really got evidence, the Crown Office in Scotland should investigate. If this is a lead, they should be following this up.”
[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here. A related article in the same newspaper headined "Yes or no: Was he really behind act of mass murder?" can be read here.
There was a visit to this blog yesterday from within Libya, the first such visit for over a week.
Because I have to make a trip from the Roggeveld Karoo to Cape Town to pick up a Scottish visitor, it is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts to this blog until Saturday 26 February.]
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Ex-minister says Gadhafi ordered Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a news agency report from Associated Press. It reads in part:]
Swedish tabloid Expressen says Libya's ex-justice minister claims Moammar Gadhafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988.
Expressen on Wednesday quoted Mustafa Abdel-Jalil as telling their correspondent in Libya that "I have proof that Gadhafi gave the order about Lockerbie." He didn't describe the proof.
Abdel-Jalil stepped down as justice minister to protest the violence against anti-government demonstrations.
He told Expressen Gadhafi gave the order to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
"To hide it, he (Gadhafi) did everything in his power to get al-Megrahi back from Scotland," Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying. (...)
Expressen spokeswoman Alexandra Forslund said its reporter, Kassem Hamade, interviewed the ex-justice minister at "a local parliament in a large city in Libya." She didn't want to name the city, citing security concerns. (...)
Bob Monetti, of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Richard was killed in the bombing, said he's glad to hear a former official say what's been clear to him all along. He said officials and the media, especially in the U.K., have been denying that.
"Ever since the trial, which was held in a totally obscure location in Holland and was covered by nobody, there's been a drumbeat in the UK about how this is a trumped up thing and Libya had nothing to do with it," he said. "If you went to the trial, there was no question about who did it and why, and who ordered it."
Monetti said he's been following coverage of the Libyan uprising closely.
"I can't wait until we see pictures of Gadhafi hanging by his heels," he said.
[A news agency report from The Press Association contains the following:]
The Scottish Government says it "never doubted" the safety of the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber following reports that Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gaddafi ordered the attack. (...)
A Swedish newspaper reported that Col Gaddafi had personally ordered the bombing.
The Expressen said Libya's former justice secretary, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, told its correspondent in Libya: "I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie.
"To hide it, he did everything in his power to get Megrahi back from Scotland." (...)
But the Scottish Government, which has repeatedly said Megrahi was only freed on compassionate grounds because of his terminal prostate cancer, said: "Ministers have never doubted the safety of the conviction."
[On this blog yesterday, the following was posted:]
What’s the betting that, sometime in the next few weeks, the following happens:
1. In the burned out ruins of a Libyan government building, someone finds definitive documentary ‘proof’ that Libya and Megrahi were responsible for Lockerbie, and/or
2. A Libyan official reveals, ‘we did it’.
The official case is now so thin that only such concoctions can save it (although it’s also crossed my mind that a prisoner will come forward who says ‘Megrahi confessed to me' – another hallmark of paper-thin cases).
Swedish tabloid Expressen says Libya's ex-justice minister claims Moammar Gadhafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988.
Expressen on Wednesday quoted Mustafa Abdel-Jalil as telling their correspondent in Libya that "I have proof that Gadhafi gave the order about Lockerbie." He didn't describe the proof.
Abdel-Jalil stepped down as justice minister to protest the violence against anti-government demonstrations.
He told Expressen Gadhafi gave the order to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
"To hide it, he (Gadhafi) did everything in his power to get al-Megrahi back from Scotland," Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying. (...)
Expressen spokeswoman Alexandra Forslund said its reporter, Kassem Hamade, interviewed the ex-justice minister at "a local parliament in a large city in Libya." She didn't want to name the city, citing security concerns. (...)
Bob Monetti, of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Richard was killed in the bombing, said he's glad to hear a former official say what's been clear to him all along. He said officials and the media, especially in the U.K., have been denying that.
"Ever since the trial, which was held in a totally obscure location in Holland and was covered by nobody, there's been a drumbeat in the UK about how this is a trumped up thing and Libya had nothing to do with it," he said. "If you went to the trial, there was no question about who did it and why, and who ordered it."
Monetti said he's been following coverage of the Libyan uprising closely.
"I can't wait until we see pictures of Gadhafi hanging by his heels," he said.
[A news agency report from The Press Association contains the following:]
The Scottish Government says it "never doubted" the safety of the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber following reports that Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gaddafi ordered the attack. (...)
A Swedish newspaper reported that Col Gaddafi had personally ordered the bombing.
The Expressen said Libya's former justice secretary, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, told its correspondent in Libya: "I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie.
"To hide it, he did everything in his power to get Megrahi back from Scotland." (...)
But the Scottish Government, which has repeatedly said Megrahi was only freed on compassionate grounds because of his terminal prostate cancer, said: "Ministers have never doubted the safety of the conviction."
[On this blog yesterday, the following was posted:]
What’s the betting that, sometime in the next few weeks, the following happens:
1. In the burned out ruins of a Libyan government building, someone finds definitive documentary ‘proof’ that Libya and Megrahi were responsible for Lockerbie, and/or
2. A Libyan official reveals, ‘we did it’.
The official case is now so thin that only such concoctions can save it (although it’s also crossed my mind that a prisoner will come forward who says ‘Megrahi confessed to me' – another hallmark of paper-thin cases).
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Cruel. Vainglorious. Steeped in blood. And now, surely, after more than four decades of terror and oppression, on his way out?
[This is the headline over an article by Robert Fisk in today's edition of The Independent. The first, eighth and ninth paragraphs read as follows:]
So even the old, paranoid, crazed fox of Libya – the pallid, infantile, droop-cheeked dictator from Sirte, owner of his own female praetorian guard, author of the preposterous Green Book, who once announced he would ride to a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Belgrade on his white charger – is going to ground. Or gone. Last night, the man I first saw more than three decades ago, solemnly saluting a phalanx of black-uniformed frogmen as they flappered their way across the sulphur-hot tarmac of Green Square on a torrid night in Tripoli during a seven-hour military parade, appeared to be on the run at last, pursued – like the dictators of Tunis and Cairo – by his own furious people. (...)
And if what we are witnessing is a true revolution in Libya, then we shall soon be able – unless the Western embassy flunkies get there first for a spot of serious, desperate looting – to rifle through the Tripoli files and read the Libyan version of Lockerbie and the 1989 UTA Flight 722 plane bombing; and of the Berlin disco bombings, for which a host of Arab civilians and Gaddafi's own adopted daughter were killed in America's 1986 revenge raids; and of his IRA arms supplies and of his assassination of opponents at home and abroad, and of the murder of a British policewoman, and of his invasion of Chad and the deals with British oil magnates; and (woe betide us all at this point) of the truth behind the grotesque deportation of the soon-to-expire al-Megrahi, the supposed Lockerbie bomber too ill to die, who may, even now, reveal some secrets which the Fox of Libya – along with Gordon Brown and the Attorney General for Scotland, for all are equal on the Gaddafi world stage – would rather we didn't know about.
And who knows what the Green Book Archives – and please, O insurgents of Libya, do NOT in thy righteous anger burn these priceless documents – will tell us about Lord Blair's supine visit to this hideous old man; an addled figure whose "statesmanlike" gesture (the words, of course, come from that old Marxist fraud Jack Straw, when the author of Escape to Hell promised to hand over the nuclear nick-nacks which his scientists had signally failed to turn into a bomb) allowed our own faith-based Leader to claim that, had we not smitten the Saddamites with our justified anger because of their own non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Libya, too, would have joined the Axis of Evil.
[A knowledgeable commentator on and recent visitor to Libya has just sent me an e-mail containing the following sentences:]
Looks like the Colonel is doomed, which can only be a good thing. In view of events in Libya, I’d like, if I may, to pose the following rhetorical question on your blog:
What’s the betting that, sometime in the next few weeks, the following happens:
1. In the burned out ruins of a Libyan government building, someone finds definitive documentary ‘proof’ that Libya and Megrahi were responsible for Lockerbie, and/or
2. A Libyan official reveals, ‘we did it’.
The official case is now so thin that only such concoctions can save it (although it’s also crossed my mind that a prisoner will come forward who says ‘Megrahi confessed to me' – another hallmark of paper-thin cases).
So even the old, paranoid, crazed fox of Libya – the pallid, infantile, droop-cheeked dictator from Sirte, owner of his own female praetorian guard, author of the preposterous Green Book, who once announced he would ride to a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Belgrade on his white charger – is going to ground. Or gone. Last night, the man I first saw more than three decades ago, solemnly saluting a phalanx of black-uniformed frogmen as they flappered their way across the sulphur-hot tarmac of Green Square on a torrid night in Tripoli during a seven-hour military parade, appeared to be on the run at last, pursued – like the dictators of Tunis and Cairo – by his own furious people. (...)
And if what we are witnessing is a true revolution in Libya, then we shall soon be able – unless the Western embassy flunkies get there first for a spot of serious, desperate looting – to rifle through the Tripoli files and read the Libyan version of Lockerbie and the 1989 UTA Flight 722 plane bombing; and of the Berlin disco bombings, for which a host of Arab civilians and Gaddafi's own adopted daughter were killed in America's 1986 revenge raids; and of his IRA arms supplies and of his assassination of opponents at home and abroad, and of the murder of a British policewoman, and of his invasion of Chad and the deals with British oil magnates; and (woe betide us all at this point) of the truth behind the grotesque deportation of the soon-to-expire al-Megrahi, the supposed Lockerbie bomber too ill to die, who may, even now, reveal some secrets which the Fox of Libya – along with Gordon Brown and the Attorney General for Scotland, for all are equal on the Gaddafi world stage – would rather we didn't know about.
And who knows what the Green Book Archives – and please, O insurgents of Libya, do NOT in thy righteous anger burn these priceless documents – will tell us about Lord Blair's supine visit to this hideous old man; an addled figure whose "statesmanlike" gesture (the words, of course, come from that old Marxist fraud Jack Straw, when the author of Escape to Hell promised to hand over the nuclear nick-nacks which his scientists had signally failed to turn into a bomb) allowed our own faith-based Leader to claim that, had we not smitten the Saddamites with our justified anger because of their own non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Libya, too, would have joined the Axis of Evil.
[A knowledgeable commentator on and recent visitor to Libya has just sent me an e-mail containing the following sentences:]
Looks like the Colonel is doomed, which can only be a good thing. In view of events in Libya, I’d like, if I may, to pose the following rhetorical question on your blog:
What’s the betting that, sometime in the next few weeks, the following happens:
1. In the burned out ruins of a Libyan government building, someone finds definitive documentary ‘proof’ that Libya and Megrahi were responsible for Lockerbie, and/or
2. A Libyan official reveals, ‘we did it’.
The official case is now so thin that only such concoctions can save it (although it’s also crossed my mind that a prisoner will come forward who says ‘Megrahi confessed to me' – another hallmark of paper-thin cases).
Monday, 21 February 2011
Lord Advocate under fire for "false advice"
This is the headline over a report in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Post. It does not appear on the newspaper's vestigial website, but can be read here in a post by Robert Forrester on the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page.
The Crown Office statement at the end of the article is laughable. The Lord Advocate was caught out being economical with the truth (to put it at its mildest) over the grounds on which the first appeal failed. The Crown Office responds by referring to what was argued in the second appeal before it was abandoned just prior to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation. Talk about diversionary tactics! That the Scottish prosecution system is in the hands of people who are capable of such transparent chicanery is profoundly worrying.
The Crown Office statement at the end of the article is laughable. The Lord Advocate was caught out being economical with the truth (to put it at its mildest) over the grounds on which the first appeal failed. The Crown Office responds by referring to what was argued in the second appeal before it was abandoned just prior to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation. Talk about diversionary tactics! That the Scottish prosecution system is in the hands of people who are capable of such transparent chicanery is profoundly worrying.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Labour supporting lawyer: I would have made same decision as MacAskill
[What follow are excerpts from an article by The Herald's Scottish political editor, Tom Gordon, published today on the Herald Scotland website.]
An outspoken lawyer tipped to replace Labour MSP Wendy Alexander last night branded his own party’s policy on knife crime “absurd” and defended the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Ian Smart (...) a past president of the Law Society of Scotland, even went so far as to say that the parliament needs to be more than just a home for former councillors.
His remarks could make his bid to replace Alexander as Labour’s candidate in Paisley awkward for Scottish leader Iain Gray. (...)
Smart, 52, was a founder of Scottish Labour Action, the pro-devolution movement which also included Alexander and Jack McConnell. A respected lawyer practising in Cumbernauld, he became president of the Law Society in 2009. (...)
Smart was equally forthright on law and order. Despite Gray criticising the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi in 2009 on compassionate grounds, Smart said he supported the decision by SNP justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to free the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
“Faced with the medical evidence that Kenny had at the time, personally I would have made the same decision,” he said.
He said the way the issue became politicised, dividing down party lines, showed “the worst aspect of Scottish politics”.
[A Scottish Labour politician thinking for himself and not just parroting the party line! Whatever next? A willingness to look at the rottenness of the Megrahi conviction, maybe?]
An outspoken lawyer tipped to replace Labour MSP Wendy Alexander last night branded his own party’s policy on knife crime “absurd” and defended the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Ian Smart (...) a past president of the Law Society of Scotland, even went so far as to say that the parliament needs to be more than just a home for former councillors.
His remarks could make his bid to replace Alexander as Labour’s candidate in Paisley awkward for Scottish leader Iain Gray. (...)
Smart, 52, was a founder of Scottish Labour Action, the pro-devolution movement which also included Alexander and Jack McConnell. A respected lawyer practising in Cumbernauld, he became president of the Law Society in 2009. (...)
Smart was equally forthright on law and order. Despite Gray criticising the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi in 2009 on compassionate grounds, Smart said he supported the decision by SNP justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to free the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
“Faced with the medical evidence that Kenny had at the time, personally I would have made the same decision,” he said.
He said the way the issue became politicised, dividing down party lines, showed “the worst aspect of Scottish politics”.
[A Scottish Labour politician thinking for himself and not just parroting the party line! Whatever next? A willingness to look at the rottenness of the Megrahi conviction, maybe?]
Lockerbie, Megrahi and the Prisoner Transfer Agreement: a mystery
[I am grateful to Sir Brian Barder for letting me know that the full text of his article, referred to in a report in The Scotsman on 17 February, can now be read here. The following is an excerpt:]
There’s a major mystery in the newly released British government documents containing new revelations about the controversial release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted (quite possibly wrongly) of responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Moreover it’s puzzling that the mystery was never raised when the prime minister, David Cameron, made a statement and answered questions about the documents in the House of Commons on 7 February. It’s the hippopotamus in the living-room that everyone is apparently too polite to mention.
Here’s the mystery. In August 1998 the US and UK governments invited the United Nations Security Council to approve an initiative under which the two Libyans suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing would be tried in a special court in the Netherlands under Scottish law. The Security Council duly approved the initiative in a formal resolution passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, meaning that the resolution has binding force on all UN member states under international law. But the relevant point is this: the US-UK letter setting out the initiative, as approved by the mandatory UN resolution, stipulates in terms that if convicted, the suspects “will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom” – in practice meaning in Scotland, since all the proceedings were to be governed by Scottish law. One of the two suspects was later acquitted: the other, Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison with a 27-year tariff. Megrahi duly began to serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
Now fast-forward to 2007. Western relations with Libya have been ‘normalised’ following Libya’s abandonment of its nuclear weapons programme, sanctions have been lifted and UK firms are negotiating for lucrative and now legitimate contracts with Libya. Tony Blair, then the UK prime minister, on the last of his visits to Libya, signs an agreement with Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in which the two governments promise to sign a Prisoner Transfer Agreement within a year. The PTA allows a Libyan convict held in a UK prison to be transferred to serve the balance of his or her sentence in prison in Libya (and vice versa). The Libyans make it clear that agreement to a PTA is the key to approval of various contracts with UK firms. The only Libyan in a UK jail is Megrahi. Everyone understands that Libyan insistence on a PTA is intended to open the way to the eventual repatriation of Megrahi to Libya – theoretically to serve the rest of his 27-year sentence in a Libyan prison. The Scottish Government in Edinburgh, responsible under Scottish law for any decision affecting Megrahi’s future, repeatedly makes it clear that it is strongly opposed to the use of the PTA for transferring him to Libya. But the PTA is signed under the British government’s foreign affairs power and the Scottish Government has no veto over it. The mystery here is obvious. The UK-US initiative approved by the Security Council resolution stipulates that Megrahi must serve his sentence in the UK. The PTA envisages that he could be transferred to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya. The PTA is obviously inconsistent with the initiative and thus with a binding UN resolution. So what was the point of the PTA?
It emerges from the newly released documents that in the course of discussions about the proposed PTA, the Scottish Government asked the British government whether there would be any obstacle in international law to the transfer of Megrahi to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement if the Scottish Justice Secretary were to agree to such a transfer. After scratching its head, the British government replied, surprisingly, that there was not. The documents don’t explain how the British government arrived at this counter-intuitive conclusion, with which (even more surprisingly) the US government had agreed. But the documents do reveal a sharp disagreement between London and Washington over whether Megrahi’s transfer to Libya under the PTA would be in breach of the UK’s political (as distinct from legal) commitment to Megrahi serving his sentence in a UK prison. The Americans said it would; the UK government said it would not. Moreover, the Americans maintained that Megrahi could not be transferred to a Libyan prison under the PTA without their prior agreement, since the whole initiative under which Megrahi had been tried and jailed had been jointly devised by the US and UK governments. Again, the UK government disagreed, claiming that for it to transfer Megrahi under the PTA it would only need to inform the Americans (and the UN): American agreement, said the British, was not required.
How were the UK government’s lawyers to square this awkward circle? They argued that the UK commitment could not have been “absolute”, because no British government could commit its successor (a novel and inherently subversive doctrine in international relations) and also because it could not have ruled out the possibility of a change in UK relations with Libya – another novel doctrine, allowing any government to wriggle out of its commitments at will. For whatever reasons, the British government apparently decided not to disclose to the Scottish Government either its disagreement with the Americans over the status of the (“political”) commitment that Megrahi must serve his sentence in the UK, nor the grounds for its contention that there was no conflict between the two instruments.
There’s a major mystery in the newly released British government documents containing new revelations about the controversial release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted (quite possibly wrongly) of responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Moreover it’s puzzling that the mystery was never raised when the prime minister, David Cameron, made a statement and answered questions about the documents in the House of Commons on 7 February. It’s the hippopotamus in the living-room that everyone is apparently too polite to mention.
Here’s the mystery. In August 1998 the US and UK governments invited the United Nations Security Council to approve an initiative under which the two Libyans suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing would be tried in a special court in the Netherlands under Scottish law. The Security Council duly approved the initiative in a formal resolution passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, meaning that the resolution has binding force on all UN member states under international law. But the relevant point is this: the US-UK letter setting out the initiative, as approved by the mandatory UN resolution, stipulates in terms that if convicted, the suspects “will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom” – in practice meaning in Scotland, since all the proceedings were to be governed by Scottish law. One of the two suspects was later acquitted: the other, Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison with a 27-year tariff. Megrahi duly began to serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
Now fast-forward to 2007. Western relations with Libya have been ‘normalised’ following Libya’s abandonment of its nuclear weapons programme, sanctions have been lifted and UK firms are negotiating for lucrative and now legitimate contracts with Libya. Tony Blair, then the UK prime minister, on the last of his visits to Libya, signs an agreement with Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in which the two governments promise to sign a Prisoner Transfer Agreement within a year. The PTA allows a Libyan convict held in a UK prison to be transferred to serve the balance of his or her sentence in prison in Libya (and vice versa). The Libyans make it clear that agreement to a PTA is the key to approval of various contracts with UK firms. The only Libyan in a UK jail is Megrahi. Everyone understands that Libyan insistence on a PTA is intended to open the way to the eventual repatriation of Megrahi to Libya – theoretically to serve the rest of his 27-year sentence in a Libyan prison. The Scottish Government in Edinburgh, responsible under Scottish law for any decision affecting Megrahi’s future, repeatedly makes it clear that it is strongly opposed to the use of the PTA for transferring him to Libya. But the PTA is signed under the British government’s foreign affairs power and the Scottish Government has no veto over it. The mystery here is obvious. The UK-US initiative approved by the Security Council resolution stipulates that Megrahi must serve his sentence in the UK. The PTA envisages that he could be transferred to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya. The PTA is obviously inconsistent with the initiative and thus with a binding UN resolution. So what was the point of the PTA?
It emerges from the newly released documents that in the course of discussions about the proposed PTA, the Scottish Government asked the British government whether there would be any obstacle in international law to the transfer of Megrahi to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement if the Scottish Justice Secretary were to agree to such a transfer. After scratching its head, the British government replied, surprisingly, that there was not. The documents don’t explain how the British government arrived at this counter-intuitive conclusion, with which (even more surprisingly) the US government had agreed. But the documents do reveal a sharp disagreement between London and Washington over whether Megrahi’s transfer to Libya under the PTA would be in breach of the UK’s political (as distinct from legal) commitment to Megrahi serving his sentence in a UK prison. The Americans said it would; the UK government said it would not. Moreover, the Americans maintained that Megrahi could not be transferred to a Libyan prison under the PTA without their prior agreement, since the whole initiative under which Megrahi had been tried and jailed had been jointly devised by the US and UK governments. Again, the UK government disagreed, claiming that for it to transfer Megrahi under the PTA it would only need to inform the Americans (and the UN): American agreement, said the British, was not required.
How were the UK government’s lawyers to square this awkward circle? They argued that the UK commitment could not have been “absolute”, because no British government could commit its successor (a novel and inherently subversive doctrine in international relations) and also because it could not have ruled out the possibility of a change in UK relations with Libya – another novel doctrine, allowing any government to wriggle out of its commitments at will. For whatever reasons, the British government apparently decided not to disclose to the Scottish Government either its disagreement with the Americans over the status of the (“political”) commitment that Megrahi must serve his sentence in the UK, nor the grounds for its contention that there was no conflict between the two instruments.
Carlos the Jackal on Lockerbie and Libya
[What follows is from a website that I have just discovered. It bears to be a section from Carlos the Jackal's second book It Is Carlos's Turn to Talk.]
You’ll remember (...) nearly all the Western media stormed over how Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was supposedly the murderer of nearly 300 people in the plane crash after a "terrorist" bomb attack over Lockerbie town in Scotland on December 21, 1988, could be set free. And, they protested about his being saluted in his own country as a hero who they thought was a murderer.
Firstly, I would like to say that Libyan government does not have any connection with this event. Neither Libya nor Libyans were involved in this event from the beginning to the end. It is not a groundless defense, it is the definite truth. Indeed, neither Qaddafi likes me nor I like him. Because he was not honest and supportive to me. Do not think that I’m on the side of Libya as a favor. I'm just trying to express the truth for me. I’m on the side of Libya on this issue since all the Libyan people were attacked under the pretext of Lockerbie with prejudice.
First of all, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who was imprisoned as the responsible one for this event was the security chief of Tripoli Airport. And, from diplomats to official representatives whoever came to Libya know him like I saw him many times when I was coming to or leaving Libya because he was the one organizing security there.
Similarly, al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah who was tried together with al-Megrahi in [the Netherlands] did not have any connection with this event. He was a station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport, Malta. After the judicial process, they let him go back to Libya as his innocence was proved.
But, why was Abdelbaset al-Megrahi given a hero’s welcome when he landed in Libya? He was welcomed like that because he is really a hero, a real hero!
This can be asked: Why did Libya admit that they had responsibility for this event? They did so since they noticed that FBI's evidence that was just "invented" and full of nonsensical things would probably be a pretext for an American attack against Libya. In order to stop this, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi accepted to be tried in [the Netherlands] for of a crime he had never committed. He sacrificed all his life for the sake of Libya, for the good of Ummah and for this duty given by Libyan government. I think, he is a person to be respected by Ummah for his unique bravery. Libya’s being a tribal state cannot overshadow the greatness of this self-sacrifice. You know, since he was seriously ill, he was sent to his country. Although this can be seen as the primary reason for setting him free, another reason behind his release is that Scottish Criminal Justice had new evidence that Libyans were not connected with the bombs used in the attack.
Did the USA not know who and which countries actually organized this operation? Of course, they did. They knew that Libya or Libyans were not responsible, and they also knew the countries behind the attack, but America was afraid of confronting and fighting them. Therefore, they tried to respond by assailing and accusing Libya. At last, Libya got rid of them by sacrificing those heroes and unfortunately by accepting to pay a huge amount of compensation, that is, three billion dollars.
The Scottish lawyer Eddie McKechnie who had defended these Libyans in [the Netherlands] is my lawyer as well. In 2003, he came from Scotland only to visit me in prison. I told him about everything I knew about this issue. We talked from morning till evening and I sent my greetings to his Libyan clients thanks to him.
To underline this issue again, I swear that Libya is not responsible for this attack. Besides, although the USA knew this truth better than anybody, they made up a story and laid the blame at Libya’s door. Because, it was against their interests to talk about the truth. Why? Because, there were high-ranking intelligence officers from the CIA station in the Middle East on that plane, and they all died. Those agents were manipulating some drug smugglers and having covert relationships with them for intelligence and other operations. It was a complicated issue for America which could not be explained. What’s more, the USA was one of the responsible ones of the incident. They were used by the men who they had wanted to make use of and were trapped due to their foolishness. But I want to say something, if Libya can press for the issue in a clever way, not only will the crimes of the USA come to the fore, but also Libya will be able to get back the three billion dollars paid as compensation. This crime of the USA is not only against Libya, but also against all of humanity. It is an unheard-of justice scandal and a political complot organized shamelessly. That’s what I can say about this issue.
You’ll remember (...) nearly all the Western media stormed over how Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was supposedly the murderer of nearly 300 people in the plane crash after a "terrorist" bomb attack over Lockerbie town in Scotland on December 21, 1988, could be set free. And, they protested about his being saluted in his own country as a hero who they thought was a murderer.
Firstly, I would like to say that Libyan government does not have any connection with this event. Neither Libya nor Libyans were involved in this event from the beginning to the end. It is not a groundless defense, it is the definite truth. Indeed, neither Qaddafi likes me nor I like him. Because he was not honest and supportive to me. Do not think that I’m on the side of Libya as a favor. I'm just trying to express the truth for me. I’m on the side of Libya on this issue since all the Libyan people were attacked under the pretext of Lockerbie with prejudice.
First of all, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who was imprisoned as the responsible one for this event was the security chief of Tripoli Airport. And, from diplomats to official representatives whoever came to Libya know him like I saw him many times when I was coming to or leaving Libya because he was the one organizing security there.
Similarly, al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah who was tried together with al-Megrahi in [the Netherlands] did not have any connection with this event. He was a station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport, Malta. After the judicial process, they let him go back to Libya as his innocence was proved.
But, why was Abdelbaset al-Megrahi given a hero’s welcome when he landed in Libya? He was welcomed like that because he is really a hero, a real hero!
This can be asked: Why did Libya admit that they had responsibility for this event? They did so since they noticed that FBI's evidence that was just "invented" and full of nonsensical things would probably be a pretext for an American attack against Libya. In order to stop this, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi accepted to be tried in [the Netherlands] for of a crime he had never committed. He sacrificed all his life for the sake of Libya, for the good of Ummah and for this duty given by Libyan government. I think, he is a person to be respected by Ummah for his unique bravery. Libya’s being a tribal state cannot overshadow the greatness of this self-sacrifice. You know, since he was seriously ill, he was sent to his country. Although this can be seen as the primary reason for setting him free, another reason behind his release is that Scottish Criminal Justice had new evidence that Libyans were not connected with the bombs used in the attack.
Did the USA not know who and which countries actually organized this operation? Of course, they did. They knew that Libya or Libyans were not responsible, and they also knew the countries behind the attack, but America was afraid of confronting and fighting them. Therefore, they tried to respond by assailing and accusing Libya. At last, Libya got rid of them by sacrificing those heroes and unfortunately by accepting to pay a huge amount of compensation, that is, three billion dollars.
The Scottish lawyer Eddie McKechnie who had defended these Libyans in [the Netherlands] is my lawyer as well. In 2003, he came from Scotland only to visit me in prison. I told him about everything I knew about this issue. We talked from morning till evening and I sent my greetings to his Libyan clients thanks to him.
To underline this issue again, I swear that Libya is not responsible for this attack. Besides, although the USA knew this truth better than anybody, they made up a story and laid the blame at Libya’s door. Because, it was against their interests to talk about the truth. Why? Because, there were high-ranking intelligence officers from the CIA station in the Middle East on that plane, and they all died. Those agents were manipulating some drug smugglers and having covert relationships with them for intelligence and other operations. It was a complicated issue for America which could not be explained. What’s more, the USA was one of the responsible ones of the incident. They were used by the men who they had wanted to make use of and were trapped due to their foolishness. But I want to say something, if Libya can press for the issue in a clever way, not only will the crimes of the USA come to the fore, but also Libya will be able to get back the three billion dollars paid as compensation. This crime of the USA is not only against Libya, but also against all of humanity. It is an unheard-of justice scandal and a political complot organized shamelessly. That’s what I can say about this issue.
Could forgotten papers hold Lockerbie clue?
[This is he headline over a highly speculative article by Ben Borland in today's edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]
Forgotten papers belonging to a Lockerbie lawyer killed in a car crash on the first day of the bombing inquiry could hold new clues to the disaster.
The widow of solicitor Michael Hughes, 37, has revealed she still has most of the documents from his near two-year investigation into the circumstances of the disaster, having never been asked to hand them over.
Mr Hughes’ tragic death, as he was representing American relatives of the 270 victims, threw the largest legal hearing of its kind in Scottish history into disarray.
Some Lockerbie families and Scots MPs were already unhappy at the relatively limited scope of the Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI), which ran from October 1990 to March 1991 and cost £3million.
It has since emerged that key details were not disclosed to the public or even withheld from the probe altogether for national security reasons.
And according to a friend of Mr Hughes, who asked not to be named, the lawyer had spoken shortly before his death of sensational new evidence that would “blow the case wide open”.
Now Mr Hughes’s widow Felicity, 57, from Pollokshields, Glasgow, has revealed she still retains many of his papers, although she admits he had probably taken much of what he knew with him to the grave.
“I don’t think we’ll ever know what Michael knew, if he knew anything,” she said. “I was never aware of a cover up, nobody hinted at that. Nothing ever came back to me. If they know anything, I know nothing about it.
“Michael’s papers from the inquiry, I possibly have some. I got his papers. I got a pile of papers from his office, put them in a box and put them away. Michael’s files – I have them, nobody else would have them.” (...)
But a colleague of Mr Hughes clearly recalls a conversation in late 1990. “He told me that he had information that would blow the case wide open,” he said. “He never gave me any more details and I think he regretted it as soon as he had said it.”
The FAI determined that the bomb was hidden in a radio-cassette player in a suitcase which was “probably” put on the plane at Frankfurt from a non-Pan Am flight.
Some critics argued the hearing did not have a wide enough scope to investigate alleged blunders by the security services. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on board Pan Am Flight 103, has since established the FAI was never told of a break-in at the luggage sheds at Heathrow on the night of the bombing.
In 1996 it emerged that five public immunity certificates had been signed in relation to the hearing, quashing potentially vital evidence. (...)
Forgotten papers belonging to a Lockerbie lawyer killed in a car crash on the first day of the bombing inquiry could hold new clues to the disaster.
The widow of solicitor Michael Hughes, 37, has revealed she still has most of the documents from his near two-year investigation into the circumstances of the disaster, having never been asked to hand them over.
Mr Hughes’ tragic death, as he was representing American relatives of the 270 victims, threw the largest legal hearing of its kind in Scottish history into disarray.
Some Lockerbie families and Scots MPs were already unhappy at the relatively limited scope of the Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI), which ran from October 1990 to March 1991 and cost £3million.
It has since emerged that key details were not disclosed to the public or even withheld from the probe altogether for national security reasons.
And according to a friend of Mr Hughes, who asked not to be named, the lawyer had spoken shortly before his death of sensational new evidence that would “blow the case wide open”.
Now Mr Hughes’s widow Felicity, 57, from Pollokshields, Glasgow, has revealed she still retains many of his papers, although she admits he had probably taken much of what he knew with him to the grave.
“I don’t think we’ll ever know what Michael knew, if he knew anything,” she said. “I was never aware of a cover up, nobody hinted at that. Nothing ever came back to me. If they know anything, I know nothing about it.
“Michael’s papers from the inquiry, I possibly have some. I got his papers. I got a pile of papers from his office, put them in a box and put them away. Michael’s files – I have them, nobody else would have them.” (...)
But a colleague of Mr Hughes clearly recalls a conversation in late 1990. “He told me that he had information that would blow the case wide open,” he said. “He never gave me any more details and I think he regretted it as soon as he had said it.”
The FAI determined that the bomb was hidden in a radio-cassette player in a suitcase which was “probably” put on the plane at Frankfurt from a non-Pan Am flight.
Some critics argued the hearing did not have a wide enough scope to investigate alleged blunders by the security services. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on board Pan Am Flight 103, has since established the FAI was never told of a break-in at the luggage sheds at Heathrow on the night of the bombing.
In 1996 it emerged that five public immunity certificates had been signed in relation to the hearing, quashing potentially vital evidence. (...)
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Clear message for all voters in Scotland
[What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
There is a clear message for all voters in Scotland in May. It is a bedrock of any civilised society that it offers its people a justice system that is impartial and seen to be impartial by them.
A substantial tranche of people, including some of the UK's most respected lawyers, together with a UN official observer of the Lockerbie trial (Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna), and so many others, including myself, the committee of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) group and all the signatories to its petition, question the safety of the verdict at Zeist convicting Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing. Our number grows and grows.
On top of that, and more important to Scottish voters, our Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, after three years work, decided that the verdict might be a miscarriage of justice. As things stand, we cannot be sure we got that verdict right.
I urge therefore that voters ask of any candidate for office, no matter which party he or she belongs to: "What action do you propose to take over the Lockerbie verdict if elected?" Afterwards hold him or her to the answer.
If the answer does not include a fully empowered review of the verdict, then your vote may contribute to appalling consequences for all of us in Scotland.
Our legal system may become confirmed in putting its own reputation above delivering justice impartially to the rest of us, as already seen so clearly in the McKie fingerprint case.
There is a clear message for all voters in Scotland in May. It is a bedrock of any civilised society that it offers its people a justice system that is impartial and seen to be impartial by them.
A substantial tranche of people, including some of the UK's most respected lawyers, together with a UN official observer of the Lockerbie trial (Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna), and so many others, including myself, the committee of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) group and all the signatories to its petition, question the safety of the verdict at Zeist convicting Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing. Our number grows and grows.
On top of that, and more important to Scottish voters, our Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, after three years work, decided that the verdict might be a miscarriage of justice. As things stand, we cannot be sure we got that verdict right.
I urge therefore that voters ask of any candidate for office, no matter which party he or she belongs to: "What action do you propose to take over the Lockerbie verdict if elected?" Afterwards hold him or her to the answer.
If the answer does not include a fully empowered review of the verdict, then your vote may contribute to appalling consequences for all of us in Scotland.
Our legal system may become confirmed in putting its own reputation above delivering justice impartially to the rest of us, as already seen so clearly in the McKie fingerprint case.
What we ignore about Megrahi
[This is the headline over a section in Richard Ingrams's column in today's edition of The Independent. I am grateful to Caustic Logic for drawing it to my attention. The section reads as follows:]
In accordance with my campaign for the more widespread use of inverted commas, I am pleased to note that some papers are now putting the word marriage, as in the expression gay marriage, in inverted commas.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the expression Lockerbie bomber, as it is applied to Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who is still the subject of fierce controversy following his return to Libya. There is indignation in some quarters that Mr Megrahi is still alive and scarcely veiled suggestions that he may not have been suffering from cancer at all – though most of us know how difficult it is for doctors to predict life expectancy in cancer patients.
What is extraordinary is how little attention has been given to the strong grounds for thinking that Mr Megrahi is not only innocent, but that he was framed with the connivance of the British and American governments. The chief witness for the prosecution, the highly unreliable and inconsistent Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, was subsequently paid millions of dollars by the CIA and forensic evidence against Mr Megrahi was provided by two scientists working for the British government who had been previously discredited in trials of IRA suspects falsely accused of bomb-making. Anyone interested should read campaigning lawyer Gareth Peirce's long account of the story, now reprinted in a little book, Dispatches From The Dark Side (Verso).
In accordance with my campaign for the more widespread use of inverted commas, I am pleased to note that some papers are now putting the word marriage, as in the expression gay marriage, in inverted commas.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the expression Lockerbie bomber, as it is applied to Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who is still the subject of fierce controversy following his return to Libya. There is indignation in some quarters that Mr Megrahi is still alive and scarcely veiled suggestions that he may not have been suffering from cancer at all – though most of us know how difficult it is for doctors to predict life expectancy in cancer patients.
What is extraordinary is how little attention has been given to the strong grounds for thinking that Mr Megrahi is not only innocent, but that he was framed with the connivance of the British and American governments. The chief witness for the prosecution, the highly unreliable and inconsistent Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, was subsequently paid millions of dollars by the CIA and forensic evidence against Mr Megrahi was provided by two scientists working for the British government who had been previously discredited in trials of IRA suspects falsely accused of bomb-making. Anyone interested should read campaigning lawyer Gareth Peirce's long account of the story, now reprinted in a little book, Dispatches From The Dark Side (Verso).
Friday, 18 February 2011
Parliament urged to undertake immediate investigation into Lord Advocate's “misinformation” and “serious flaws” in advice to Government
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Parliament has been urged to undertake an investigation into the legal advice provided by the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in her role as legal adviser to the Scottish Government over the Pan Am 103 debacle.
In a lengthy and detailed response to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, the Justice for Megrahi Committee have issued a devastating critique of the Lord Advocate’s handling of the case, highlighting errors in her legal assessment of the Megrahi case, and have challenged “the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer.”
The committee includes emeritus professor of law Robert Black QC, whose advice was sought in the preparation of the trial of the two men accused in the Pan Am 103 case.
The concerns are articulated in the JFM committee’s response to the submissions placed before the Parliament’s petitions committee, in which they respond in particular to statements lodged by the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government outlining why they oppose the convening of an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 fiasco.
In her submission, the Lord Advocate mistakenly claims that both the original trial panel of three judges, together with the five judge appeal bench “subjected the evidence to rigorous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr al-Megrahi was responsible…"
The JFM committee state that this is "simply not the case."
The Scottish Government, advised by the Lord Advocate, asserts in its submission that it “does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi,” contrary to the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which concluded a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
“The central question therefore becomes: how much did the Lord Advocate’s erroneous advice that the evidence which led to the conviction had being ‘rigorously’ examined by two courts affect their judgement,” the JFM committee said.
“It is our submission that the effect would have been considerable and might even have swayed the Government in its belief in the conviction and subsequent statement.
“On a more general point, Elish Angiolini is Scotland’s senior law officer and legal advisor to the government. What is certain is that her fingerprints can be seen all over the Government’s refusal of the JFM Petition to have an inquiry carried out. That the Lord Advocate should have played such a central role in the decision making and yet should issue such patently inaccurate and false information is extremely worrying and in our opinion demands an immediate investigation."
The committee's response goes on at length to narrate further "errors" in the Lord Advocate's submissions which they say call into question the quality and accuracy of the advice given to the Scottish Government.
"If, however, this was the only information error emanating from the Lord Advocate it would be bad enough but it is not," the group said.
"In our initial response to the Scottish Government, 13 January 2011, we pointed out how the Government had erroneously stated that it did not have the power to establish a public enquiry.
“We commented:‘It is difficult to understand these errors given the Crown Office and civil service assistance that was available to the Scottish Government. At best this points to grossly inaccurate research and at worst to a deliberate effort to muddy the waters.’
“Yet again we are forced to draw attention to the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer. That there might have been serious flaws in the briefings the Scottish Government was receiving prior to our petition being turned down and also possibly prior to the release of Mr. Megrahi is, we believe, a matter of great concern.
“An important question to be asked is to what extent did this misinformation affect the Scottish Government’s decision making process?
The committee go on to further challenge the competence of the Lord Advocate, and claim she “has delivered inaccurate and confusing information.”
Angiolini announced in September that she would be stepping down from her post at the Scottish elections taking place in May.
The Committee adds that the attitude of the Crown Office -whose conduct has been consistently criticised by the UK Families Flight 103 Group, whose spokesman Dr Jim Swire is on the JFM committee, “is symptomatic of a culture of self-interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest.”
“We believe that the Lord Advocate, in her briefing of the Scottish Government in relation to our petition for a public inquiry, has delivered inaccurate and confusing information,” the group said.
“Firstly she was wrong in advising that the Government did not have the power to hold such an inquiry and also wrong in suggesting that all of the evidence heard at Mr Megrahi’s Zeist trial had been ‘rigorously’ re-examined by the appeal court. This of course begs the question to what extent this misinformation has affected the Government response.
“It is stretching credibility to believe that such misinformation did not colour this most critical of decisions, and of course once made, it colours everything including their latest response.
“It is clear to the JFM Committee that the misinformation from the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to the Scottish Government, which we refer to above, is symptomatic of a culture of self interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest. It is against this background that the Government and Lord Advocate responses should be judged.
“We would go further than this and suggest that in the light of these two errors how can we be confident that other misinformation has not been supplied regarding our petition and perhaps even in respect of the wider matter of Mr. Megrahi's release and other issues related to Lockerbie?
“We believe that these question marks over the accuracy of the Lord Advocate’s information and her motivation in issuing it have potentially serious implications for our justice system." (...)
The petitions committee will debate the submission when it reconvenes on 1 March.
The Scottish Parliament has been urged to undertake an investigation into the legal advice provided by the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in her role as legal adviser to the Scottish Government over the Pan Am 103 debacle.
In a lengthy and detailed response to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, the Justice for Megrahi Committee have issued a devastating critique of the Lord Advocate’s handling of the case, highlighting errors in her legal assessment of the Megrahi case, and have challenged “the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer.”
The committee includes emeritus professor of law Robert Black QC, whose advice was sought in the preparation of the trial of the two men accused in the Pan Am 103 case.
The concerns are articulated in the JFM committee’s response to the submissions placed before the Parliament’s petitions committee, in which they respond in particular to statements lodged by the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government outlining why they oppose the convening of an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 fiasco.
In her submission, the Lord Advocate mistakenly claims that both the original trial panel of three judges, together with the five judge appeal bench “subjected the evidence to rigorous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr al-Megrahi was responsible…"
The JFM committee state that this is "simply not the case."
The Scottish Government, advised by the Lord Advocate, asserts in its submission that it “does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi,” contrary to the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which concluded a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
“The central question therefore becomes: how much did the Lord Advocate’s erroneous advice that the evidence which led to the conviction had being ‘rigorously’ examined by two courts affect their judgement,” the JFM committee said.
“It is our submission that the effect would have been considerable and might even have swayed the Government in its belief in the conviction and subsequent statement.
“On a more general point, Elish Angiolini is Scotland’s senior law officer and legal advisor to the government. What is certain is that her fingerprints can be seen all over the Government’s refusal of the JFM Petition to have an inquiry carried out. That the Lord Advocate should have played such a central role in the decision making and yet should issue such patently inaccurate and false information is extremely worrying and in our opinion demands an immediate investigation."
The committee's response goes on at length to narrate further "errors" in the Lord Advocate's submissions which they say call into question the quality and accuracy of the advice given to the Scottish Government.
"If, however, this was the only information error emanating from the Lord Advocate it would be bad enough but it is not," the group said.
"In our initial response to the Scottish Government, 13 January 2011, we pointed out how the Government had erroneously stated that it did not have the power to establish a public enquiry.
“We commented:‘It is difficult to understand these errors given the Crown Office and civil service assistance that was available to the Scottish Government. At best this points to grossly inaccurate research and at worst to a deliberate effort to muddy the waters.’
“Yet again we are forced to draw attention to the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer. That there might have been serious flaws in the briefings the Scottish Government was receiving prior to our petition being turned down and also possibly prior to the release of Mr. Megrahi is, we believe, a matter of great concern.
“An important question to be asked is to what extent did this misinformation affect the Scottish Government’s decision making process?
The committee go on to further challenge the competence of the Lord Advocate, and claim she “has delivered inaccurate and confusing information.”
Angiolini announced in September that she would be stepping down from her post at the Scottish elections taking place in May.
The Committee adds that the attitude of the Crown Office -whose conduct has been consistently criticised by the UK Families Flight 103 Group, whose spokesman Dr Jim Swire is on the JFM committee, “is symptomatic of a culture of self-interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest.”
“We believe that the Lord Advocate, in her briefing of the Scottish Government in relation to our petition for a public inquiry, has delivered inaccurate and confusing information,” the group said.
“Firstly she was wrong in advising that the Government did not have the power to hold such an inquiry and also wrong in suggesting that all of the evidence heard at Mr Megrahi’s Zeist trial had been ‘rigorously’ re-examined by the appeal court. This of course begs the question to what extent this misinformation has affected the Government response.
“It is stretching credibility to believe that such misinformation did not colour this most critical of decisions, and of course once made, it colours everything including their latest response.
“It is clear to the JFM Committee that the misinformation from the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to the Scottish Government, which we refer to above, is symptomatic of a culture of self interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest. It is against this background that the Government and Lord Advocate responses should be judged.
“We would go further than this and suggest that in the light of these two errors how can we be confident that other misinformation has not been supplied regarding our petition and perhaps even in respect of the wider matter of Mr. Megrahi's release and other issues related to Lockerbie?
“We believe that these question marks over the accuracy of the Lord Advocate’s information and her motivation in issuing it have potentially serious implications for our justice system." (...)
The petitions committee will debate the submission when it reconvenes on 1 March.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Blair's desert deal with Libya broke UN resolution on Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
A former British ambassador has accused the previous Labour government of "flagrantly contravening" United Nations resolutions over its decision to allow the Lockerbie bomber to apply for release back to Libya.
Sir Brian Barder, who served as British High Commissioner to Australia, writes in The Scotsman today [RB: article available only to subscribers] that the so-called "deal in the desert" between the then prime minister, Tony Blair, and Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1997 was a clear breach of a UN resolution which stipulated the bomber should see out his sentence in the UK.
At the meeting, Mr Blair agreed to a Libyan request to sign a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) for Libyan prisoners in the UK. At the time, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity, was the only Libyan in a UK jail.
But Sir Brian points out that this decision was "in obvious breach" of UN resolution 1192, signed in 1998, which had endorsed a UK-United States initiative to keep anyone convicted of the bombing in the UK.
Sir Brian suggests that the UK government signed the deal first and only then gave lawyers instructions on how to devise a justification for the breach.
He describes those justifications, released in letters over the past two years, as "feeble".
The diplomat, who also led the UK's diplomatic mission in Ethiopia, Poland and Nigeria in a 30-year career in the Foreign Office, said the Scottish Government's decision to release Mr Megrahi was "fully consistent" with the UN resolution, because it had been taken on compassionate grounds. (...)
[It is comforting to have this belated diplomatic recognition of the accuracy of what I have been saying repeatedly on this blog since at least 29 August 2009.]
A former British ambassador has accused the previous Labour government of "flagrantly contravening" United Nations resolutions over its decision to allow the Lockerbie bomber to apply for release back to Libya.
Sir Brian Barder, who served as British High Commissioner to Australia, writes in The Scotsman today [RB: article available only to subscribers] that the so-called "deal in the desert" between the then prime minister, Tony Blair, and Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1997 was a clear breach of a UN resolution which stipulated the bomber should see out his sentence in the UK.
At the meeting, Mr Blair agreed to a Libyan request to sign a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) for Libyan prisoners in the UK. At the time, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity, was the only Libyan in a UK jail.
But Sir Brian points out that this decision was "in obvious breach" of UN resolution 1192, signed in 1998, which had endorsed a UK-United States initiative to keep anyone convicted of the bombing in the UK.
Sir Brian suggests that the UK government signed the deal first and only then gave lawyers instructions on how to devise a justification for the breach.
He describes those justifications, released in letters over the past two years, as "feeble".
The diplomat, who also led the UK's diplomatic mission in Ethiopia, Poland and Nigeria in a 30-year career in the Foreign Office, said the Scottish Government's decision to release Mr Megrahi was "fully consistent" with the UN resolution, because it had been taken on compassionate grounds. (...)
[It is comforting to have this belated diplomatic recognition of the accuracy of what I have been saying repeatedly on this blog since at least 29 August 2009.]
SCCRC clear the way for resurrection of Megrahi's dropped appeal
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has confirmed in correspondence (...) that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's dropped appeal could be picked up and heard once again by the High Court, paving the way for an unprecedented continuation of his case.
The Commission added that the case could once again be referred back to the High Court by them after the death of Megrahi. [RB: The appeal which was started by Mr Megrahi but abandoned just before his repatriation in August 2009 cannot be revived or resurrected or continued. But a NEW appeal could be heard following a fresh reference by the SCCRC.]
The confirmation comes in correspondence issued in reply to the Parliament's public petitions committee, which is presently considering a petition from the Justice For Megrahi committee, including Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC and Iain Mckie, asking the Parliament to hold an inquiry into the debacle.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer a case to the High Court in which a previous appeal was abandoned," the letter from Chief Executive Gerard Sinclair to the committee says.
"If the Commission were to receive an application in respect of a case in which a previous appeal had been abandoned, before accepting the case for review the Commission would first consider the reasons for the abandonment of the appeal. Having considered those reasons, and any other relevant circumstances, the Commission would accept the case for review only if it was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so. This is because, in terms of the Commission’s statutory test, before the Commission may refer a case to the High Court, it must believe not only that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the case but also that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer to the High Court the conviction of a person who is deceased, provided the Commission believes that the grounds...are met."
However, under a provision inserted into the emergency legislation issued as a result of the Cadder fiasco, the High Court now has to factor an additional consideration into its decision making process; the "finality" of the legal proceedings.
The provision was criticised for being introduced without consultation, nor any imperative from the legal profession, any political party, the Law Commission or any judicial pressure or perceived failing of the SCCRC.
The provision, unrelated to the Cadder scenario, has been widely perceived as a covert attempt by the civil service to defeat the resurrection of Megrahi's appeal and deny the court the opportunity to further scrutinise the case. Parliamentarians told The Firm privately they had no opportunity to scrutinise the measure, and were attempting to comprehend its import whilst the debate was underway in the chamber. (...)
The SCCRC letter is part of a series of responses solicited by the petitions committee, which also includes replies from the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government.
The response from the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini states in error the common misapprehension that both the specially convened Zeist court and the later appeal court "subjected the evidence to rigourous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi was responsible."
In fact the appeal court specifically did not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to secure Megrahi's conviction.
"In this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment," the appeal court stated.
"We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The distinction is explained more fully by trial "architect" Professor Robert Black QC, here.
The SCCRC letter can be read here, and the other responses can be viewed here.
[The response of the petitioners, dated 16 February 2011, to the letters from the Crown Office, the Scottish Government and the SCCRC is now available on the Public Petitions Committee website and can be viewed here.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has confirmed in correspondence (...) that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's dropped appeal could be picked up and heard once again by the High Court, paving the way for an unprecedented continuation of his case.
The Commission added that the case could once again be referred back to the High Court by them after the death of Megrahi. [RB: The appeal which was started by Mr Megrahi but abandoned just before his repatriation in August 2009 cannot be revived or resurrected or continued. But a NEW appeal could be heard following a fresh reference by the SCCRC.]
The confirmation comes in correspondence issued in reply to the Parliament's public petitions committee, which is presently considering a petition from the Justice For Megrahi committee, including Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC and Iain Mckie, asking the Parliament to hold an inquiry into the debacle.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer a case to the High Court in which a previous appeal was abandoned," the letter from Chief Executive Gerard Sinclair to the committee says.
"If the Commission were to receive an application in respect of a case in which a previous appeal had been abandoned, before accepting the case for review the Commission would first consider the reasons for the abandonment of the appeal. Having considered those reasons, and any other relevant circumstances, the Commission would accept the case for review only if it was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so. This is because, in terms of the Commission’s statutory test, before the Commission may refer a case to the High Court, it must believe not only that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the case but also that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer to the High Court the conviction of a person who is deceased, provided the Commission believes that the grounds...are met."
However, under a provision inserted into the emergency legislation issued as a result of the Cadder fiasco, the High Court now has to factor an additional consideration into its decision making process; the "finality" of the legal proceedings.
The provision was criticised for being introduced without consultation, nor any imperative from the legal profession, any political party, the Law Commission or any judicial pressure or perceived failing of the SCCRC.
The provision, unrelated to the Cadder scenario, has been widely perceived as a covert attempt by the civil service to defeat the resurrection of Megrahi's appeal and deny the court the opportunity to further scrutinise the case. Parliamentarians told The Firm privately they had no opportunity to scrutinise the measure, and were attempting to comprehend its import whilst the debate was underway in the chamber. (...)
The SCCRC letter is part of a series of responses solicited by the petitions committee, which also includes replies from the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government.
The response from the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini states in error the common misapprehension that both the specially convened Zeist court and the later appeal court "subjected the evidence to rigourous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi was responsible."
In fact the appeal court specifically did not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to secure Megrahi's conviction.
"In this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment," the appeal court stated.
"We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The distinction is explained more fully by trial "architect" Professor Robert Black QC, here.
The SCCRC letter can be read here, and the other responses can be viewed here.
[The response of the petitioners, dated 16 February 2011, to the letters from the Crown Office, the Scottish Government and the SCCRC is now available on the Public Petitions Committee website and can be viewed here.]
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Responses to Petitions Committee's queries
At its meeting on 25 January 2011, the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission with queries arising out of the Scottish Government's earlier response to the Justice for Megrahi petition and the petitioners' comments thereon. The answers from these bodies have been received by the committee and can be read here. At the invitation of the committee, the petitioners have prepared a written response to these answers. These documents will be considered by the committee at its meeting on 1 March.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Lockerbie row escalates after amnesia accusations
[This is the headline over a report in yesterday's edition of The Herald on the story featured in the previous day's Mail on Sunday on the spat between Jack Straw and the Scottish Government over the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement. The Herald's article reads in part:]
A war of words between Scottish ministers and the former Labour Government over the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing continued yesterday amid accusations of “selective amnesia”.
Labour ministers have claimed that prominent SNP politicians gave them assurances that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi could be released in return for concessions for Scotland.
These included to gain control over firearms legislation and to reduce the bill that the Scottish Government would have to pay to prisoners who had been forced to “slop out” while in jail.
Both Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill have denied the allegations outright.
Yesterday, Jack Straw, the former UK Justice Secretary, accused the Scottish First Minister of “selective amnesia”.
“It does seem now that he has been suffering from selective amnesia,’ Mr Straw said.
“What he’s forgotten is that when I went to him in late 2007, asking him to agree to a PTA (Prisoner Transfer Agreement) that would not exclude Megrahi, he indicated that he could be more accommodating if I could offer him two concessions – first to change the Scotland Act to make Scotland less vulnerable to paying compensation to prisoners for slopping out, and second to transfer responsibility for firearms from Westminster to Scotland.” (...)
Mr Salmond’s spokesman last night said: ‘We must agree to disagree with Mr Straw.’
He added that the documentary record held by the Scottish Government contained no evidence of any such deal, and that such a deal would have been irrelevant as Mr Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds, not under the terms of a PTA.
[Two bald men arguing over a comb. What matters is the scandal of Megrahi's conviction, not the circumstances of his release. I shall not in future regularly be posting on this blog articles and media comments about the repatriation. This is because (a) the issue bores me rigid and (b) my internet connection here in the wilds of the Roggeveld Karoo is so unstable that it is a waste of scarce connection time to squander it on this peripheral issue.]
A war of words between Scottish ministers and the former Labour Government over the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing continued yesterday amid accusations of “selective amnesia”.
Labour ministers have claimed that prominent SNP politicians gave them assurances that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi could be released in return for concessions for Scotland.
These included to gain control over firearms legislation and to reduce the bill that the Scottish Government would have to pay to prisoners who had been forced to “slop out” while in jail.
Both Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill have denied the allegations outright.
Yesterday, Jack Straw, the former UK Justice Secretary, accused the Scottish First Minister of “selective amnesia”.
“It does seem now that he has been suffering from selective amnesia,’ Mr Straw said.
“What he’s forgotten is that when I went to him in late 2007, asking him to agree to a PTA (Prisoner Transfer Agreement) that would not exclude Megrahi, he indicated that he could be more accommodating if I could offer him two concessions – first to change the Scotland Act to make Scotland less vulnerable to paying compensation to prisoners for slopping out, and second to transfer responsibility for firearms from Westminster to Scotland.” (...)
Mr Salmond’s spokesman last night said: ‘We must agree to disagree with Mr Straw.’
He added that the documentary record held by the Scottish Government contained no evidence of any such deal, and that such a deal would have been irrelevant as Mr Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds, not under the terms of a PTA.
[Two bald men arguing over a comb. What matters is the scandal of Megrahi's conviction, not the circumstances of his release. I shall not in future regularly be posting on this blog articles and media comments about the repatriation. This is because (a) the issue bores me rigid and (b) my internet connection here in the wilds of the Roggeveld Karoo is so unstable that it is a waste of scarce connection time to squander it on this peripheral issue.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)