Prosecuting Gaddafi: ensuring justice in Libya

[This is the title of an article published two days ago on the University of Pittsburgh Law School's Jurist website by Charles Adeogun-Phillips a former international prosecutor and senior UN lawyer, who for over a decade led the prosecution of persons responsible for the Rwandan genocide. It reads in part:]

From all indications, it would seem as though the 42-year reign of Libyan leader and Pan African activist Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is finally over. Like Saddam Hussein, his ego is bound to get the better of him, and he will mostly likely remain on Libyan soil until he is captured by rebel forces. That is not necessarily a bad thing. 

At a minimum, it is clear that the preferred choice of the National Transitional Council (NTC) is that Gaddafi be tried at home on account of the fact that he presided over the brutal slaughter of Libyan civilians during the recent uprising. It may well be that, in an attempt to reflect the totality of Gaddafi's alleged criminal conduct, the NTC may decide that he face trial on international terrorism charges in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland 23 years ago. Many international commentators have objected to this view on the premise that it is inconceivable that Gaddafi could receive justice at the hands of those whom he has repressed for so long. Consequently, they have argued that his fate should be left to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague. 

Notable among those clamoring for a trial in the ICC is a leading international human rights lawyer and former president of the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, Geoffrey Robertson. In recent articles in The Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian, he argues that as a matter of principle, the fate of the Gaddafis must not be left to Libyans. In that regard, Robertson identifies the massacre of 1,200 captives in a prison compound, the killing of 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing and almost as many in a passenger jet over Chad a few months later, as "the most egregious examples of Gaddafi's international crimes." He argues that it is essential for "Gaddafi [to] face justice in The Hague, not in Benghazi."

I am a little surprised and perhaps even more confused by Robertson's arguments in this regard, considering that the ICC does not have retrospective jurisdiction and is therefore unable to try Gaddafi for these particular crimes. All crimes within the jurisdiction of that court must have occurred after the entry into force of the Rome Statute on July 1, 2002. This is one key feature of proceedings before the ICC. That being the case, even with its best efforts, the ICC will be unable to try Gaddafi for these events.

Apart from lacking the temporal jurisdiction to try Gaddafi for these crimes, the ICC also lacks subject matter jurisdiction, at least so far as the Lockerbie and Chad bombings are concerned. These were acts of terrorism committed without any connection to an armed conflict and as such are outside the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute, even though they constitute international crimes. I fail to understand the logic in Robertson's suggestion that a court, which obviously lacks jurisdiction, provides Libyans with an appropriate forum to try Gaddafi for these crimes. Astonishingly, and still in favor of The Hague, Robertson argues that the fact that "liberation has come to the Libyans courtesy of international law, they have a reciprocal duty to abide by it." As evidence of this, Robertson cites the UN Security Council Resolution 1970 [PDF] of February 2011, which referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, and which has led to charges being filed by the ICC prosecutor against Muammar Gaddafi, his son, Saif al-Islam and Abdullah al-Senussi by the said court.

However, a close examination of UN Security Council Resolution 1970 will reveal that it has nothing whatsoever to do with either the Lockerbie or Chad bombings. In fact, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has not indicted the Gaddafis for any of these crimes because he is quite simply barred by statute, thus raising one of the most unique and fascinating aspects of international criminal law. In that regard, although there is no statute of limitation for the prosecution of international crimes, several of the international penal institutions where such crimes can be prosecuted are often of limited temporal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such is the case here.

So, if the ICC prosecutor is statute barred from prosecuting Gaddafi at least in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, he is in effect devoid of the ability to reflect the totality of Gaddafi's alleged criminal conduct in court, especially as this particular crime was "international" in all its ramifications. That cannot be the right approach to seeking justice for both Libyans and the international community at large.

Robertson further cites UN Security Council Resolution 1973 mandating NATO's action in Libya to protect civilian lives, and concludes that no one can pretend that Gaddafi's regime could have been overthrown without the air, sea and logistical support provided by NATO forces. To be fair, he is not the only one that shares this view. It is the collective opinion of many in the "West." However, he likens it to a "duty" under international law, and that is what I have a problem with.

Having totally confused the temporal and subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC in relation to the events outlined above, I trust this renowned British human rights lawyer is not now suggesting that the Libyan people owe the super powers in control of NATO, immense gratitude for their "intervention" in saving the people of Libya and that the time has come for some sort of "payback," after all, as the saying goes, nothing goes for nothing. In all my years of practice as a distinguished member of the international bar, I have never come across such a notion under public international law — namely, one which imposes on a sovereign state, a "reciprocal duty to abide by international law."

On Megrahi, again, as before

[This is the heading over a post by John Rentoul today on the Eagle Eye blog on the website of The Independent. It reads in part:]

I thought it worth putting something that William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, told The Times last week, outside the pay wall:

"The overall strategy of engaging with Gaddafi to turn him away from a nuclear programme was right, including the contact with the intelligence services. Imagine the greater difficulty we would have had if he had had a whole range of weapons over the last few months." (...)

Thus my surprise that The Sunday Telegraph should have thought that “After he was prime minister, Tony Blair had two meetings with Gaddafi” was worth the front-page lead. Laden with innuendo about the media myth of the release of the Lockerbie bomber that is simply wrong.

We know that Blair wanted Megrahi out (or, rather, that he wanted Gaddafi to think that he was trying), but that it was not his decision. It was the decision of the Scottish executive, namely Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, and Kenny MacAskill, his justice minister.

Salmond would not have released Megrahi because Blair wanted him to. Salmond hates Blair, whom he tried to “impeach” over Iraq (showing no better understanding of the English language than the UK constitution or what was right), and the sentiment is warmly returned.

(It is not legally or formally relevant, but it is not irrelevant that there are serious doubts about Megrahi’s guilt.)

Lockerbie Libya Syria; Who to frame next

This is the heading over a long article by Dr Christof Lehmann published yesterday on his NSNBC website. It explores some of the well-known concerns about the Megrahi conviction and bears to have been motivated by a "recent article" by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer about the Lumpert affidavit. The article in question was in fact published on 6 September 2007, though it has been featured over the past few days on a number of websites, such as this one, as if it were new.

Evidence grows of Blair's links with Gaddafi

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. It reads in part:]

Tony Blair's shadowy links with Muammar Gaddafi were thrust into the spotlight again last night after it emerged that he met the former Libyan dictator twice for secret talks in the run-up to the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

A collection of documents found in Tripoli have revealed that Mr Blair was flown to Libya twice on one of Colonel Gaddafi's private jets after he left office in the UK, according to a report in The Sunday Telegraph. In the letters and emails, Mr Blair's private office repeatedly refers to Gaddafi as "The Leader".

The meetings, in 2008 and 2009, came at a time when Libya was threatening to cut all business links with the UK if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi stayed in a British jail.

The correspondence, between Mr Blair's office, the British ambassador in Tripoli and the Libyan ambassador in London, raise possible conflicts of interest regarding his roles as Middle East peace envoy, philanthropist and consultant. 

The former prime minister, who brought a US billionaire to one of the meetings, makes no reference to the trips on any of his websites. 

Mr Blair's office last night denied that the visits were business-related. A spokesman confirmed that Megrahi's situation was raised at the meetings, but insisted that Mr Blair always told the Libyans that the prisoner's status was a matter for the Scottish Executive. Megrahi, who has cancer, was eventually released on health grounds in August 2009 after doctors judged that he had only three months to live. 

But Pam Dix, whose brother died in the Lockerbie bombing, said yesterday: "These meetings ... are disturbing, and details of what was discussed should now be made public. I am astonished Tony Blair continued to have meetings like this out of office." 

The meetings took place at a time of intense negotiations with Colonel Gaddafi's regime over Megrahi's release (...)

A spokesman for Tony Blair said last night: "Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has no commercial relationship with any Libyan company or entity.

"The subject of the conversations during Mr Blair's occasional visits was primarily Africa, as Libya was for a time head of the African Union; but also the Middle East and how Libya should reform and open up. At the time, governments around the world were engaging with Libya."

[It appears that the story on The Independent website is in fact a re-hash of a longer report that appeared on the website of The Telegraph on Saturday evening.  The original report can be read here. It contains the following paragraph:]

Mr Blair has always denied involvement in Megrahi's release – saying it was a decision taken by the Scottish Executive alone. Last night a spokesman admitted Megrahi's release was raised by Gaddafi.

[The report in The Scotsman of Monday, 19 September contains the following:]

Yesterday justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who made the decision to release Megrahi, insisted that the meetings played no part in his decision.

He said: "Al-Megrahi is dying of terminal prostate cancer, and was released on compassionate grounds. These reports underline the extent of Labour's hypocrisy over al-Megrahi. It was Tony Blair who rode roughshod over Scotland by secretly negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement with Col Gaddafi in the first place, for reasons of trade and politics.

"As all the documentation and inquiries demonstrate, only the SNP government played with a straight bat on this matter."

[A similar but longer report in Monday's edition of The Herald can be read here.]

The proverbial dog not barking

[The following are excerpts from a long article by Robert Parry published yesterday on the Consortium News website:]

During the six-month uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, major US news outlets repeated again and again that the Libyan dictator was behind the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and they ignored warnings that militant Islamists were at the core of the anti-Gaddafi rebel army. (...)

Only outside the mainstream press would you find significant questions asked about the certainty over Libya’s guilt in the Pan Am bombing and about the makeup of the rebels. 

Now, after the United States and its NATO allies have engineered the desired “regime change” in Libya – under the pretext of “protecting civilians” – those two points are coming more into focus.

The New York Times and The Washington Post on Thursday finally acknowledged that radical Islamists, including some with links to al-Qaeda, are consolidating their power inside the new regime in Tripoli.

And, the proverbial dog not barking – even as Libya’s secret intelligence files have been exposed to the eyes of Western journalists – is the absence of any incriminating evidence regarding Libya’s role in the Lockerbie case. Earlier interrogations of Libya’s ex-intelligence chief Moussa Koussa by Scottish authorities also apparently came up empty, as he was allowed to leave London for Qatar.

Since Gaddafi’s fall, news outlets also have reported that Libyan intelligence agent, Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing by a Scottish court and was later released on humanitarian grounds because of terminal prostate cancer, is indeed gravely ill, bedridden and seemingly near death.

Megrahi’s trial in 2001 before a panel of Scottish judges was more a kangaroo court than any serious effort to determine guilt – even a Scottish appeals court [RB: Presumably it is the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that is being referred to] expressed concern about a grave miscarriage of justice – but the Western press continues to describe Megrahi, without qualification, as the “Lockerbie bomber.”

It also was common in the West’s news media to smirk at the notion that Megrahi was truly suffering from advanced prostate cancer since he hadn’t died as quickly as some doctors thought he might. After Gaddafi’s regime fell, Megrahi’s family invited BBC and other news organizations to see Megrahi struggling to breathe in his sick bed.

His son, Khaled al-Megrahi, also continued to insist on his father’s innocence. “He believes and we know that everybody will see the truth,” the younger Megrahi told the BBC. “I know my father is innocent and one day his innocence will come out.”

Asked about the people who died in the bombing, the son said: “We feel sorry about all the people who died. We want to know who did this bad thing. We want to know the truth as well.”

As more information becomes available inside Libya, the facts may finally be clarified about whether Gaddafi’s government did or did not have a hand in the bombing over Lockerbie. However, so far, the indications are that Megrahi may well have been railroaded by the Scottish judges who found a second Libyan defendant innocent and were under political pressure to convict someone for the crime.

After Megrahi’s curious conviction, the West imposed harsh economic sanctions on Libya, agreeing to lift them only if Libya accepted “responsibility” for the bombing and paid restitution to the families of the 270 victims. To get rid of the punishing sanctions, Libya accepted the deal although its officials continued to insist that Libya had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing.

However, amid this year’s propaganda campaign in support of the Libyan rebels, none of this uncertainty was mentioned in The New York Times, The Washington Post or other leading US news outlets. Gaddafi’s guilt for Lockerbie was simply stated as flat fact, much as the same news organizations endorsed false claims about Iraq’s WMD in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of that Arab country.

The Times of Malta on the CIA Giaka cables

[Today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times contains a report on the CIA cables relating to the Pan Am 103 bombing that were referred to in a post on this blog on 5 September 2011. The report reads in part:]

Malta was a “primary launching point” for Libyan intelligence and terrorist teams transiting Europe, according to a recent compilation of declassified CIA cables dating between 1988 and 1991.

But campaigners for justice in the Lockerbie bombing case have slammed such claims, describing the CIA’s main informant as a “money-grubbing fantasist” who led the CIA by the nose.

The informant quoted extensively in the 255-page document (taken predominantly from declassified CIA cables released in 2008 and compiled by an international organisation) is Abdul Majid Giaka, whose testimony, as an informant, was pivotal in convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing, despite the court having cast doubts on Mr Giaka’s credibility and reliability as a witness. [RB: Giaka's testimony was not "pivotal" in convicting Megrahi. The Lockerbie judges rejected his evidence in its entirety, with the exception of that part relating to the structure of the Libyan security and intelligence services and Megrahi's alleged position in them.]

According to Lockerbie campaigner Robert Forrester, the recently compiled cables are so heavily redacted that any effort to corroborate the veracity of intelligence is impossible.

“Giaka was showered with US tax dollars in return for nothing of substance,” he told The Times.

Mr Forrester – who forms part of a group of Lockerbie victim family members who believe Mr al Megrahi was wrongly convicted – also criticised the CIA for showing no indication of having tried to independently corroborate any of the “so-called intelligence”. [RB: The Justice for Megrahi group, of which Robert Forrester is secretary, is not, of course, "a group of Lockerbie victim family members" but a group of concerned persons, some of whom are Lockerbie family members.]

“It really does look like [the CIA] swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker, until it finally dawned on them that he was worthless,” he said.

“These additional papers detailing the CIA’s relationship with Mr Giaka, add little to what is already known and to the doubts which have always hung over this case... Malta has absolutely no reason to think that these documents taint the island’s good name any more than it has been.”

However, he added that it is up to the Maltese government to take “concrete steps” to lift the cloud of Lockerbie which hangs over the island.

“The evidence is there which proves that there is no evidence to support this conviction.”

The Lockerbie pretext

[A long article by Russ Baker on the media and the Libya situation has been posted today on the HPUB (Huffington Post Union of Bloggers) website. The paragraphs relating to Lockerbie and Megrahi read as follows (footnotes omitted):]

If the effort to rally public opinion against Qaddafi centered on any one factor, it was fury over Libya’s purported role in the 1988 bombing of  Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. As we noted in a previous article, in the years since the conviction of a Libyan intelligence officer in the tragedy, a chorus of doubts has grown steadily. The doubt is based on new forensic evidence and research, plus subsequent claims by prosecution witnesses that their testimony was the result of threats, bribes, or other forms of coercion. It is an ugly and disturbing story, not well known to the larger news audience.

Yet Lockerbie has continued to touch nerves. In February, when Qaddafi’s Justice Minister turned against him and became a rebel leader, he brought with him dynamite. Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil made the dramatic claim that his ex-boss was the culprit behind the bombing of Pan Am 103. He asserted that he had proof of Qaddafi giving the direct order for the crime. This got considerable media attention, though almost no news organizations followed up or reported that  Jeleil never did supply that proof. The Libyan convicted of the crime has consistently denied any involvement. Nonetheless, his conviction in the case has had Qaddafi on the defensive for years—and working hard to prove to the West that he can be a “good citizen.” Part of this has entailed his paying out huge sums in reparations. (...)

Qaddafi had been attempting for some time to get his country out of the near-global embargo imposed after blame for the Lockerbie bombing was laid at Libya’s feet. And the West, for its part, had been largely in a great hurry to “forgive”—and to get access to Libya’s riches. (...)

This rapprochement was characterized by a land rush of Western corporations that had long coveted their share of Libya’s oil revenues. Leading the way was the investment bank Goldman Sachs. Qaddafi and his advisers trusted Goldman’s claims that it would turn handsome profits with any funds entrusted to it. Yet Goldman managed to lose an astonishing 98 percent of the funds, which were the Libyan people’s sovereign wealth. No matter. Goldman was soon back with more brilliant ideas—including suggesting, at the height of the Wall Street crisis, that Qaddafi buy a substantial stake in the Goldman firm itself.

Qaddafi was faced with these huge losses at the very time Libya was carrying a crushing obligation of reparations for the Lockerbie bombing that had been pressed on Libya as a condition of its re-emergence from years of isolation, and he began to worry about how he would pay for it all. Keeping the Libyan population at a relatively high standard of living (compared certainly to neighboring Egypt) was essential to his maintaining power. It was at this point that  Qaddafi began pressing foreign oil companies to increase the royalties they pay, and the companies began grousing about it. (...)

Here’s another twist: The Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing, released in 2009 from jail in Scotland and allowed to return home for health reasons, is now, according to CNN, on his death bed, said to be deprived of medicines due to the recent looting of Libyan pharmacies. Once the rebels had consolidated their hold over Tripoli, CNN found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi comatose, and while he has consistently maintained his innocence, it is unlikely the world will ever learn what he knows. With him and Qaddafi disappearing from the scene, any demand for a deeper inquiry into the bombing will likely evaporate.

Criminal Cases (Punishment & Review) (Scotland) Bill: summary notes

[Official Bill summary notes appear on the Scottish Government's website in respect of all the proposed legislation contained in its Programme for Scotland 2011-2012. The summary notes in respect of the Criminal Cases (Punishment & Review) (Scotland) Bill read as follows:]

The Scottish Government will introduce legislation which will give statutory authority to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ("the Commission") to decide whether it is appropriate to publish a Statement of Reasons in cases they have investigated where an appeal has subsequently been abandoned. Under the current law the Commission is prohibited from disclosing information it holds relating to cases other than in very limited and restricted circumstances.

The Bill will:

*Put in place an appropriate legislative framework to facilitate, as far as possible, the release of a statement of reasons by the Commission in circumstances where an appeal has been abandoned

*Require the Commission, in determining whether it is appropriate to publish information, to consult with those affected by, or who otherwise have an interest in, the information

*Maintain appropriate provision for such matters as international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities so that where information is obtained under international assistance arrangements from a foreign authority, the consent of that foreign authority is required before the Commission can publish their information.

[The only significant respect in which the proposed new primary legislation differs from the currently operative secondary legislation is that the Commission will in future have to "consult with those affected by, or who otherwise have an interest in, the information" rather than obtain the consent of those who supplied the information. I take leave to doubt whether the Commission will regard this as solving the problems which it encountered when seeking to effect disclosure under the existing provisions. But I hope to be proved wrong.]

Statement from Lord Trefgarne and Professor Black

In 1993 Lord Trefgarne approached Professor Black (having been given his name by the then Dean of the Faculty of Advocates) for advice in determining whether there was any legal mechanism whereby the impasse could be resolved that had resulted from the UN Security Council’s demand that the two Libyan suspects be handed over for trial in Scotland or the United States and Libya’s refusal to do so on the grounds that Libyan law did not permit the extradition of its nationals for trial overseas. Over the course of the next six years, Lord Trefgarne and Professor Black worked strenuously to secure acceptance of the neutral venue scheme that Professor Black formulated in early 1994. No payment was sought or received for these endeavours. It was only after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s conviction at Zeist in January 2001 and Professor Black had publicly expressed the strong view that that conviction was legally unwarranted [RB: eg on the BBC HARDtalk programme the week the verdict was returned; and in an article in the May 2001 issue of the Edinburgh Law Review] that an agreement was entered into with his lawyer, Dr Ibrahim Legwell, that Lord Trefgarne and Professor Black should receive payment for future political and legal advice on avenues of appeal.

In the event the only sum actually paid barely covered expenses. Lord Trefgarne and Professor Black again emphasise that this was an entirely proper arrangement reflecting the circumstances of the time.

Lord Trefgarne did declare this matter in the House of Lords Register in accordance with the rules then in force.

[This statement is issued in the light of forthcoming publication of a letter sent in 2007 by Lord Trefgarne to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi seeking his assistance in securing the payments envisaged in the agreement with Dr Legwell. No such payments were made (apart from a sum which barely covered the expenses which had been incurred by Lord Trefgarne in funding various trips to Libya for consultations).

The story features (behind the paywall) in the 11 September edition of The Sunday Times.  A news agency report from The Press Association can be read here.  A report published on 13 September on the website of The Times (behind the paywall) contains the following:]

The peer admitted today that he had registered his work on behalf of the bombers in just 2003 and 2004 in the Lords’ register of interests despite acting as an advisor for al-Megrahi’s legal team until 2007. 

In a personal statement to the house he will say: “I accept that although the business to which the letter refers was correctly entered in your Lord’s records in 2003 it was removed in 2005, which was clearly premature. I also accept that the use of Lord’s writing paper was inappropriate.”

The letter to Saif, which was discovered by The Sunday Times, referred to “fees owed over a considerable number of years prior to September 2001”. 

The fees were owed by Ibrahim Legwell, a Tripoli-based lawyer who represents al-Megrahi, the only person to be convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people. (...)

In a statement after the discovery of the letter Lord Trefgarne and Professor Black said that no payment had been sought for advice prior to al-Megrahi’s conviction in January 2001. (...)

He told The Times the money he actually received in relation to the al-Megrahi case, which was paid unexpectedly directly into his bank account, “barely covered expenses” and that his letter to Mr al-Islam produced no results. (...)

He said he had been “confused” in his letter to Mr al-Islam in seeking money for work carried out prior to 2001.

Clegg "a two-bit opportunist" over Megrahi

[The following is one paragraph from a column by Ian Jack in today's edition of The Guardian headed There is a new, unexpected feeling in Scotland: a pity for the state of England:]

From its beginnings, modern Scottish nationalism at its demotic level has fed from ideas of victimhood, or what Annabel Goldie, the leader (still) of the Scottish Tories, once called the culture of "girn and grievance". It would be unwise to imagine this has vanished for good; there may be all kinds of London-Edinburgh quarrels between now and the referendum on independence in which the finger of blame is pointed firmly south. But at the moment, from the Scottish perspective, England looks a more fractious, turbulent and uncertain society. Its innovations look like stunts; while Scotland plans to save money by amalgamating police forces, for example, England's route to efficiency is by electing police commissioners. Its politicians are both shriller and more callow. When Nick Clegg called for the dying Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to be re-imprisoned, Salmond calmly pointed out that it was undesirable on compassionate grounds, and in any case impossible, because Libya's transitional government would never agree to it. Clegg came out of the exchange like a two-bit opportunist at the Oxford Union.

Correspondence between Megrahi and a US Lockerbie relative

 [The following are excerpts from a report published yesterday on the website of Assist News Service:]

Just weeks after members of Congress in the US had called for Abdel Basset al-Megrahi to be transferred back to Scotland to serve the remainder of his sentence, he was found in his home in Tripoli in a coma and on life support. (...)

With his continued survival an additional two years [after his compassionate release], several of the American Lockerbie family members began calling for his return to prison and enlisted the support of members of Congress in their efforts. 

Lisa Gibson, who lost her brother Kenneth on the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 has taken a different approach. She made a decision to forgive Megrahi and sent him a letter in June 2004 saying that “Only God knows if you are really responsible. But as a Christian I need to forgive you.” 

Megrahi sent her a letter back in July 2004 saying he was sorry for her loss, that he could tell she was a religious person and that, like her, he has a family and would never commit such a horrific act.

He quoted scriptures, both from the Bible and the Quran, believing one day he would be proven innocent. He cited Luke 18 in his letter which says, “Listen to what the unjust judge says and will not God bring about Justice for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you He will see that they get justice and quickly.”

Megrahi closed the letter by saying, “Madam, I pray for you to be happy in your life and suffer no such sadness in the future. I pray that there will be love amongst all mankind and for peace on Earth for God is peace, goodness and in God we find eternal happiness.” (...)

When news came out about the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds Gibson was the lone voice supporting the decision. It went with her consistent desire and belief that the only effective way to fight hate and evil is to walk in the opposite spirit of love. She saw it as the honorable way to respond. In 2010, she asked visit him in Libya, but his health was failing and he declined the request.

 
“I believe justice is about deterring future bad behavior more than being purely punitive. I saw no evidence that Megrahi was a danger to society,” said Gibson, a Christian attorney based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “So, what good would it serve by requiring him to die in prison. The moral high ground is to allow him to die with dignity, even if he really was responsible for our families’ death. When I heard the news at Megrahi was in a coma and close to death it gave me peace to know that they made the right decision to release him on compassionate grounds, ” Gibson said.

Pilger on Libya and Megrahi

[The following is an extract from an article by John Pilger published yesterday on the Information Clearing House website:]

Gone from the Murdoch press are pejorative "insurgents". The action in Libya, says The Times, is "a revolution... as revolutions used to be". That it is a coup by a gang of Muammar Gaddafi's ex cronies and spooks in collusion with Nato is hardly news. The self-appointed "rebel leader", Mustafa Abdul Jalil, was Gaddafi's feared justice minister. The CIA runs or bankrolls most of the rest, including America's old friends, the Mujadeen Islamists who spawned al-Qaeda.

 

They told journalists what they needed to know: that Gaddafi was about to commit "genocide", of which there was no evidence, unlike the abundant evidence of "rebel" massacres of black African workers falsely accused of being mercenaries. European bankers' secret transfer of the Central Bank of Libya from Tripoli to "rebel" Benghazi by European bankers in order to control the country's oil billions was an epic heist of little interest.

The entirely predictable indictment of Gaddafi before the "international court" at The Hague evokes the charade of the dying "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, whose "heinous crime" has been deployed to promote the west's ambitions in Libya. In 2009, al-Megrahi was sent back to Libya by the Scottish authorities not for compassionate reasons, as reported, but because his long-awaited appeal would have confirmed his innocence and described how he was framed by the Thatcher government, as the late Paul Foot's landmark expose revealed. As an antidote to the current propaganda, I urge you to read a forensic demolition of al-Megrahi's "guilt" and its political meaning in Dispatches from the Dark Side: on torture and the death of justice (Verso) by the distinguished human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce.

Libyans will hand over any new Lockerbie evidence - Salmond

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.  It reads as follows:]

Alex Salmond said the Scottish Government had made contact with the Libyan National Transitional Council in an attempt to ensure that any intelligence uncovered about the Lockerbie bombing is passed to the Scottish authorities.

 

The First Minister said the Scottish Government had been in touch with the council, which had indicated that it would keep communication lines open with Scotland regarding the mass murder of 270 people in flight Pan Am 103.

He was responding to a question at First Minister's Question Time from Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP who believes in the innocence of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, right, the Libyan intelligence agent convicted of the crime.

Mr Salmond confirmed that contact had been made with the Transitional Council before adding: "This is an open investigation as the Crown Office has always made clear and they along with the police will continue to pursue any lines of inquiry that may arise.

"That of course would refer to protection of any evidence that would shed light on this issue. Now the National Transitional Council have indicated a willingness to maintain contact on this issue. They did make quite a reasonable point I think that they have an immediate focus in Libya of restoring civil order and to rebuild services as the current conflict draws to a close."

Police officer identified by Bella Caledonia is not "the golfer"

[With his permission, I reproduce here an email that I received this afternoon from George Thomson:]

I follow your blog with keen interest.  Normally I remain on the sidelines which can be frustrating.  In relation to the allegation that [******] was the Golfer, I am in a position to refute that notion completely.
  

It was I who first approached the Golfer having been pointed in his direction by another officer.  I took the initial statements from the Golfer and was in contact with him for some time.

At our very first meeting I gave him my word that I would never reveal his identity and I have always stood by that promise. 
 

I think that it is fair however to break cover a wee bit in this instance and come to the recue of Mr [******].  I can state categorically that he was not the Golfer. 

[The relevant page appears now (after the appearance of this blog post) to have been removed from the Bella Caledonia website.]

The ill-feeling towards al-Megrahi is unworthy of us

[This is the headline over a column in the Scottish edition of The Times today by Magnus Linklater, the newspaper's Scotland Editor (and the editor of The Scotsman in the bygone days when that title was still a serious and responsible journal). The column (behind the newspaper's paywall) reads in part:]

A man lies dying in his bed, breathing with difficulty as the monitor to which he is linked records an uncertain heartbeat. His mother, her face stricken with grief, strokes his hand. Outside the house, his son, speaking in halting English, asks for compassion.

But that, of course, is the one commodity that this wretched man is denied. For the patient is the Libyan bomber, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, and he has the blood of 270 innocent people on his hands. Vilified on all sides — by the families of the Pan Am victims, by those who see him as the symbol of a discredited regime, by some who suspect the machinations that secured his release and by others who cannot forgive him for living so long — he is deprived of the basic humanity that should be the right of any dying man.

Al-Megrahi’s end, when it finally comes, drives home the futility of the Scottish government’s decision to release him. It claims to have exercised compassion in sending al-Megrahi home to die. Yet in death he is accorded none; instead he has been rendered an object either of curiosity or contempt. If, when the onset of his prostate cancer had been confirmed, the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, had done the right thing and moved him to a hospital bed in Scotland to die, al-Megrahi would indeed be ending his life with some dignity.

Instead, he has lingered on, long beyond his allotted time, so that even the government that secured his release finds him an embarrassment. Meanwhile, to campaigners and zealots alike, he has become a political football — kicked around by some who demand his release, by others who believe he should be seized and taken back to face his accusers.

This, by the standards of Western democracy and common humanity, is unworthy. Whatever his crimes, al-Megrahi should be allowed a decent death. The latest footage of him, screened by the BBC, should leave no one in doubt that he is nearing the end. This will, of course, do nothing to reduce the arguments about his case and about the atrocity itself. Nor should it. The anguish of the American families remains to be assuaged; we have not heard the last of the weasel attempts by various British agencies to ensure that he was returned to Libya by fair means or foul; there are Scottish documents that examine whether his conviction was safe or not.

The question of al-Megrahi’s guilt or innocence remains to be finally established. But the man himself is beyond this. His crimes will now be judged, as Mr MacAskill once said, “by a higher power”. Meanwhile, he should be allowed to die in peace.