Further steps on the path towards a Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a Reuters news agency report published on this date sixteen years ago:]

Libya fears the two men accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing could be assassinated if they go to the Netherlands for trial, the spokesman for British relatives of the victims said on Wednesday.

Jim Swire, who had just returned from a visit to Tripoli where he met Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the suspects' legal team, said he felt the fears were real and were not just a stalling manoeuvre. Swire said that if the matter could be cleared up, the trial could begin within weeks.

Libya has criticised a plan by Britain and the United States under which the two men would be tried before three Scottish judges in the Netherlands. The proposal was intended to end a prolonged impasse over Libya's refusal to hand over the men for trial either in the United States or Britain.

“There are real worries...that the lives of these men are at risk,” Swire told a meeting at a conference of Britain's minority Liberal Democrats in Brighton, southern England. He later told reporters the Libyans' fears related primarily to the US Central Intelligence Agency, although defence lawyers were also worried about the possibility of attempts on their clients' lives by Iranian or Syrian agents.

Speaking at a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats conference in Brighton, Dr Swire, a spokesman for UK Families Flight 103, said: "There are structures in this wicked world that don't want this trial happening and one way to stop that happening might be to kill these two."

Asked who was the most likely to carry out such an attack, he said: "The most obvious sources would be structures inside the US. It would be a convenient way of blocking other forms of investigation." He agreed it was "quite possible" that the Syrians or Iranians, who were blamed very soon after the 1989 bombing for funding and ordering the atrocity, could also attempt such an attack.

Swire travelled on Saturday to Tripoli along with Robert Black, a professor who pioneered the idea that the trial should take place under Scottish law in the Hague out of deference to Libyan objections to it being held in Scotland.

Swire said he and Black held talks with lawyers for the two Libyans, Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, and with the Libyan foreign ministry as well as with Gaddafi. Libya announced on Wednesday that it had subsequently replaced the defence lawyers.

“The objections (the Libyans drew) to our attention...were really sensible objections which require to be sorted out in a satisfactory manner, and not delaying tactics,” Swire said. He said he had discovered that the US air force still had the right to use the Dutch air base to which it was proposed to fly the two suspects. Swire based his optimism that a trial could still be imminent on proposals that he said Black had just sent to the United Nations to speed up negotiations on outstanding issues.

“If this (Black's proposal) is accepted, I think there is no reason why we should not be looking at weeks,” he said, declining to give details.

The path towards a Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of an Associated Press news agency report issued on this date sixteen years ago:]

The issues delaying the trial of two Libyan suspects in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet could be resolved "in a matter of weeks," two Britons said today after meeting with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Jim Swire, who speaks for some British families, and Robert Black, a law professor at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, said their talks Tuesday with Gadhafi in Tripoli were constructive and they will soon submit new proposals to UN officials to speed up the trial. They refused to give details.

"If we can reach agreement over certain technicalities which have been holding up the process, then the trial could be under way within weeks," Swire told The Associated Press. He spoke from the Tunis airport, where the men were waiting for a flight home.

The United States and Britain propose to try the suspects in the Netherlands by Scottish judges under Scottish law. Libya has accepted the proposal but continues to argue about specifics.

Swire said the Libyans offered no assurances that they will soon surrender the suspects. "But we are definitely more confident now than when we left for Tripoli," he said.

Libya has agreed in principle to accept the US-British compromise plan, but Gadhafi has demanded guarantees for the legal rights and safety of the men.

The US-British proposal calls for the Libyan suspects, if convicted, to serve their prison time in Britain. Libya has said they should serve any sentence in Libya.

For their part, British families are concerned that officials and lawyers should have full, unfettered access to all relevant witnesses and evidence, wherever they are, said Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the attack over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.

The United Nations imposed sanctions in 1992 to try to force Gadhafi to hand over the suspects for trial. The sanctions ban air travel to and from Libya, freeze foreign assets and bar the sale of some oil equipment.

The UN Security Council has passed a resolution saying that the sanctions will be lifted when the suspects are turned over for trial in the Netherlands. 

[In fact it was not a matter of weeks but another six months before the hurdles were overcome, largely through the good offices of the UN Under-Secretary-General and Legal Counsel, Hans Corell. Here is my brief account of this stage in the Lockerbie saga:]

From about late July 1998, there began to be leaks from UK government sources to the effect that a policy change over Lockerbie was imminent, and on 24 August 1998 the governments of the United Kingdom and United States announced that they had reversed their stance on the matter of a "neutral venue" trial. (...)

Although the British proposal was announced in late August 1998, it was not until 5 April 1999 that the two suspects actually arrived in the Netherlands for trial before the Scottish court.  Why the delay? The answer is that some of the fine print in the two documents was capable of being interpreted, and was in fact interpreted, by the Libyan defence team and the Libyan government as having been deliberately designed to create pitfalls to entrap them.  And since the governments of the United Kingdom and United States resolutely refused to have any direct contact with either the Libyan government or the Libyan defence lawyers, these concerns could be dealt with only through an intermediary, namely the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 

Between 20 and 22 September 1998, Dr Swire and I were again in Tripoli and were able to provide to the Libyan government and the Libyan defence team a measure of reassurance regarding some of the issues that concerned them.  However, it was we who (having received the information hot off the presses from a journalist in The Hague) had to inform the Libyan government that the chosen location in the Netherlands for trial was Kamp van Zeist, a former NATO base to which the air force of the United States still had extant treaty rights of access.  I anticipated that this information would cause the Libyans to renounce the "neutral venue" concept in high dudgeon and complain of the lack of good faith demonstrated by Her Majesty's Government in selecting, or agreeing to, such a site.  But they did not do so.  This, more than anything else, convinced me that the Libyan government and the Libyan defence lawyers genuinely wished a trial to take place and that the concerns they had expressed regarding details of the scheme now on offer were genuine concerns, not merely a colourable pretext for evading their earlier commitment to such a solution.

On 22 September we had a further meeting with the Leader of the Revolution.  On this occasion the meeting took place not in Tripoli but 400 kilometres to the east in a genuine (not reinforced concrete) Bedouin tent in a desert location inland from the town of Sirte.  Surrounded by sand dunes and noisily ruminating camels, Colonel Gaddafi, Dr Swire and I  discussed the details of the British scheme.  He accepted my assurance that at least some of the concerns that Libyan government lawyers had raised were unwarranted and that it would be worthwhile to continue to seek clarifications and reassurances through the office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations regarding the remaining issues.

The CIA and the Lockerbie trial

[As an addendum to the CIA document CIA's rôle in the Pan Am 103 investigation and trial, which has been recently disclosed, here is the text of a message delivered to relatives of the Pan Am 103 victims in September 2000 during the Lockerbie trial (and just before the CIA asset Abdul Majid Giaka was due to testify) by the then Director of the CIA, George J Tenet:]

When the trial began, I made a pledge to you that the Central Intelligence Agency would put its full support behind the prosecution of the case by the Scottish Crown Office. I want to assure you that the CIA remains committed to making every relevant piece of evidence available to the court.

As you know, allegations recently were made that the CIA has not been as forthcoming as it should be in our release of information. Those allegations are false. The men and women of the CIA -starting with me-- are doing all that we possibly can to ensure justice for your loved ones. Whenever we have been asked by prosecuting authorities to release specific information because it may be relevant to the prosecution or defense of the case, we have done so.

In deference to Scottish Law, I cannot comment upon the specific evidence in the trial so I cannot give you a detailed picture of our efforts. I am however permitted to share some general information with you.

The CIA has released numerous operational cables to the Crown Office. Although some limited information in these documents must remain protected from exposure in the interests of national security and the safety of people mentioned in them, we have gone to great lengths to declassify certain information and make it available as evidence. And we will continue to lean forward in response to requests for information by the prosecuting authorities.

Beyond making documents available to the court, we have made current and former employees available to testify as witnesses. Some of them are or were members of the CIA's Directorate of Operations who have served or are now serving undercover in the field. Two agency employees already have appeared. Another witness is a former intelligence source of the CIA. This is unprecedented. Never before has the CIA made one of our intelligence sources available to testify in a trial on foreign soil. Since CIA officers and intelligence sources who testify do so at some risk to themselves and their families, the court has allowed them to testify in alias and in disguise.

The thoughts and prayers of the men and women of CIA remain with all Pan Am 103 families. From the beginning, we have been working closely with the Department of Justice and the Scottish Crown Office, and you have my word that we will continue to cooperate intensively with them until justice is fully and finally served.

CIA's rôle in the Pan Am 103 investigation and trial

This is the title of a document from the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence Oral History Program which has very recently been disclosed under the United States federal Freedom of Information Act (5 USC § 552). It is heavily redacted but nevertheless provides a fascinating insight into the part played by the CIA in the investigation of the Lockerbie disaster, in the building of the prosecution case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah and at the trial. The document is a very lengthy one but is nonetheless required reading for anyone interested in the Lockerbie trial débacle.

I am grateful to Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer for drawing this document to my attention.

Only a full inquiry can unravel the truth

What follows is an item first posted on this blog on this date five years ago:

Misguided Magnus

For all Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi's protests about the fragility of the prosecution case against him, there are three crucial facts to be borne in mind in reading these documents. [RB: Documents released by the lawyers representing Megrahi in the appeal abandoned by him to secure his repatriation to Libya].

First, there appears to be nothing new here. It is evidence that has already been tested and rejected in the course of two court hearings: the original trial and his first appeal.

Secondly, what al-Megrahi presents is, inevitably, only one side of the case. It would have been challenged point by point in front of three High Court judges if his next appeal had gone ahead. By abandoning that legal process and returning to Libya, al-Megrahi has sacrificed the opportunity of having his evidence properly heard in a forum that would have been recognised and respected.

Third, if he was so sure of the strength of his case, why was he not willing to see the appeal go ahead in his name, even though he himself was absent? The legal position is that the accused person does not need to be present for an appeal to be heard - he may even be dead.

Yet al-Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to ensure his speedy release from Greenock prison. Indeed, even at the original trial, he declined to give evidence in his own defence. That severely undermines his attempt to demonstrate that the prosecution case was flawed.

He now argues that the evidence against him was circumstantial and built on inference. But circumstantial evidence is very often at the heart of a prosecution case, and in Scottish law, an extra strand of corroborative proof is required before the evidence is accepted, and this would have happened in the al-Megrahi case.

What we are now asked instead to believe is that experienced judges and counsel ignored the custom and practice of Scottish law in the course of two full trials, and waved through unconvincing circumstantial evidence in order to ensure a conviction.

That is not only inherently improbable, it is insulting to the Scottish legal system and the lawyers who were involved in it. Only a full inquiry can unravel the truth, rather than the partial version we have been presented with here.

[The above is the full text of a comment in today's edition of The Times by Magnus Linklater, the paper's Scottish Editor. Apart from the very last sentence of the article, everything that Mr Linklater says is either factually incorrect or demonstrably misguided.

First: the released material has not been tested and rejected in two court hearings (the original trial and the first appeal). The released material advances the contentions that the evidence heard at the original trial was (a) insufficient in law to warrant a guilty verdict and (b) that no reasonable court, on that evidence, could have convicted Abdelbaset Megrahi. These contentions were not advanced at the Zeist trial or at the first appeal. As far as that appeal is concerned, the five judges stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:

“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly 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. 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 true position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:

"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."

Second: "By abandoning that legal process and returning to Libya, al-Megrahi has sacrificed the opportunity of having his evidence properly heard in a forum that would have been recognised and respected. (...) [I]f he was so sure of the strength of his case, why was he not willing to see the appeal go ahead in his name, even though he himself was absent? The legal position is that the accused person does not need to be present for an appeal to be heard - he may even be dead. Yet al-Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to ensure his speedy release from Greenock prison."

Abdelbaset Megrahi was terminally ill. He had only a few months to live. His absolute priority was to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family. Two ways of achieving this were available: prisoner transfer and compassionate release. The first required that there be no ongoing legal proceedings (like his second appeal); the second did not. Applications for repatriation were made under both mechanisms. Megrahi did not know which, if either, of the mechanisms would be successful, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said from the outset that there would be no nods or winks. In order to keep open the possibility of benefiting from prisoner transfer Megrahi had to abandon his appeal. At the end of the day, Kenny MacAskill opted for compassionate release. But until it actually happened, Megrahi did not, and could not, know that. The decision to abandon was effectively forced upon him. 

And, of course, it would all have been unnecessary if the Crown Office, the Advocate General for Scotland (representing the UK Foreign Secretary in his public interest immunity claims) and the Appeal Court had not reduced the progress of the second appeal to a pace that would have shamed a self-respecting snail.

Third: Megrahi is not complaining that the evidence against him was circumstantial. Everyone accepts that a conviction can properly be obtained on evidence which is wholly circumstantial. The true point being raised is that for proof beyond reasonable doubt to be achieved in a case based wholly on circumstantial evidence, the incriminating inferences that the court is asked to draw from the evidence must be the only reasonable inferences open on that evidence. It is the failure of the Crown to reach (or even approach) this standard at the Zeist trial that Megrahi is complaining about.]

The sorry saga of Magnus Linklater’s writings over the years on the Megrahi case can be followed here.

UK Government blocks release of evidence to Megrahi lawyers

What follows is an item posted on this blog six years ago on this date. On this historic day I do not expect anyone, at least in Scotland, to read it.

Court rules Lockerbie timer details to stay secret

This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in The Herald. The story reads in part:

'The Appeal Court in Edinburgh has decided to appoint a special defender to view confidential documents thought to contain vital information about the electronic timer that detonated the Lockerbie bomb.

'The decision follows an unprecedented hearing, held behind closed doors, at which the UK Government argued that revealing the documents would compromise security.

'The advocate general, who represents the UK Government in Scottish courts, asked the court to appoint a security-vetted lawyer who could look at the documents on behalf of the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing.

'This special defender would then argue which parts of the document should be published - although judges would make the final decision about how much, if anything, should be revealed.

'So far the court has not published its decision, but Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has written a letter confirming that the court has decided to appoint a special defender.

'It will be the first time such a course has been taken in Scotland, although some English courts have appointed special defenders to examine evidence in terrorism cases.

'There has been no official comment from Megrahi's legal team, although it is thought it is planning an appeal to the Privy Council, arguing that the move will violate his human rights.'

The full article can be read here.

Megrahi's release and the West's intervention in Libya

[The following are excerpts from an interesting long article published today on the ConservativeHome website by John Baron MP:]

Three years on, it is clear the West’s Libyan intervention has been a disaster. A vicious civil war, growing civilian casualties and refugees, and warring tribal and religious groups have gone largely unnoticed in Britain. Things are so bad that the Libyan Parliament is now taking refuge in a Greek car ferry in Tobruk’s famous harbour. As with most of our interventions over the last decade, it was never meant to turn out like this. As we once again contemplate intervention in Iraq and Syria, Libya offers chastening lessons. (...)

We were told that Western intervention would avert an humanitarian catastrophe and prevent genocide in Benghazi – ironically now where the Islamists are arguably at their strongest. At the time of the vote, many of us in Parliament pointed out that not enough thought had been given to the challenges post-Gaddafi, to the various tribal and religious factions that would surface, and the knock-on effects beyond Libya’s borders. Some of us pointed to regional allies, who were more than capable of exercising control of the skies over Benghazi – after all, the West had been selling them tens of billions of pounds of kit for this very purpose.

Some of us also suspected the real motive was one of regime change. US anger following the Scottish release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was palpable. In February 2011, when the Foreign Affairs Select Committee met our American counterparts in Washington, the only topic they wished to discuss was not Afghanistan or Iraq, but the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber. We would not have been alone in picking up the negative vibes.

However, whatever the West’s motives, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised the protection of civilians ‘by all means necessary’ other than a ‘foreign occupying force’. On the strength of this wording, and reassurances from London, Paris and Washington that regime change was not the objective, Russia and China did not use their Security Council vetoes. (...)

If regime change was the objective, then perhaps Libya post-Gaddafi was never really going to be a concern. However, if one accepts the West’s declared motive, then once again it has been found wanting.

A lack of rigorous assessment as to the difficulty of removing Gaddafi; of post-Gaddafi planning; of understanding the various components and parties in theatre, and of the consequences, both in the vast swathes of territory in the south of the country and beyond Libya’s borders – these were just some of the errors committed: a lack of local knowledge perhaps being the common denominator. Years of cuts to the FCO budget, and the consequent dilution of skills, was a factor.

Libya is a good example of how not to intervene. Knocking the door down is always going to be the easy part. The post-intervention planning was once again the Achilles’ heel. As the West once again stands poised to intervene in Iraq and Syria, such lessons must be heeded. The consequences of getting it wrong there could be much greater.

The fiction of Crown Office integrity in Lockerbie prosecution

[On this date two years ago, I reproduced on this blog an article written by Dr Jim Swire for Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

Lockerbie and Hillsborough: the deliberate diversion of blame

[This is the headline over an article by Dr Jim Swire published today on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm.  It reads as follows:]

Dr Jim Swire writes exclusively for The Firm, following the revelations in the Hillsborough papers, and sees the thread linking the common behaviour of the legal and political institutions that bind the Pan Am 103 affair with the tragic deaths at Hillsborough.

In the world confrontation between the terrorists and the developed communities of the West, the complex structures that regulate our societies have intelligence, high technology, well orchestrated military might and the precepts and respect of our peoples for the rule of law as their main resources.

From the nature of terrorism and the front line responses of Western intelligence springs a great temptation: to use the innately secretive culture of intelligence to react to terrorism in ways which their defended populations might denounce, were they only privy to them. 'Extraordinary rendition' is a good example of this. Yet reliance upon secrecy from their own populations can only ever be a temporary protection for those who overstep the line and use that privileged secrecy in ways that defy the rule of law, which they ostensibly support.

To cross that line and use our State resources in ways that are illegal is in the end to hand a moral victory to the terrorists. To divert blame away from the actual perpetrators is to protect them and to increase the chances of them striking again. The American response to terrorism has been profoundly different from the British. America has turned to intelligence/military responses in 'the war on terror'. Britain has striven to use intelligence/criminal law. Except where our leaders have got carried away by enthusiasm for the 'special relationship' with the US and dragged us, the people protesting, into military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But State pressure upon our law to produce politically desired convictions has produced terrible distortions of that law such as detention without trial and the warped trials of alleged terrorists such as the Maguire and other IRA related cases.

It is my belief that in the case of Lockerbie the law of Scotland has been subsumed into the priorities of American foreign policy.

Douglas Hurd, a man deserving of great respect for his personal intelligence and integrity has said to Tam Dalyell and Robin Cook, referring to Lockerbie: "I do ask you two to believe that as Foreign secretary I cannot tell the Scottish Crown Office (which was in charge of the Lockerbie case) what to do, nor does the Foreign Office have detailed access to evidence which they say they have. You must understand that law officers really are a law unto themselves."

Yet I have come to believe over the past 25 years that not only did the US manipulate the Scottish criminal legal process, but that the Scottish Crown Office has ever since, fought a battle to maintain the fiction that it acted with integrity throughout the legal prosecution process.

In so doing they are in effect protecting the perpetrators of the dreadful terrorist massacre of the innocents that was Lockerbie in 1988, and damaging positive responses to better protect the future (such as making it a criminal offence for an airport not to report and take immediate appropriate action over break-ins perhaps?). I believe that in the long run it will be less damaging to the reputation of the West, and certainly for my favourite country, Scotland, to address these issues, and to take corrective action ourselves for the future, rather than allow our failures to be eventually exposed at the bar of history.

In a democratic society the more citizens who assess such matters for themselves, the greater is likely to be the integrity of the decisions which their politicians must eventually take to resolve the issues.

[A much longer and more detailed piece by Dr Swire can be read in the same blogpost from 2012.

Aspects of the conduct of the Crown Office in the Lockerbie prosecution form the basis of some of Justice for Megrahi's allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial that are currently under investigation by Police Scotland.]

Scotland's shame, the failure to resolve the disgrace that is the Lockerbie prosecution

[What follows is excerpted from a letter from Iain A J McKie published in today’s edition of The Herald:]

I have a great deal of sympathy with your correspondent Neil McPherson (Letters, September 13) and can understand his using the Scottish Government's track record to fuel his cynicism about independence resulting in a fairer society.

Like him I believe that to date our Government has proved to be a somewhat negative force in terms of social justice in its favouring of the system at the expense of the individual. In support of his argument he highlights regressive measures like the removal of the need for corroboration, unaccountable policing and Scotland's shame, the failure to resolve the disgrace that is the Lockerbie prosecution. To that I could add the Government's increasingly incestuous relationship with the Crown Office and police which has resulted in what Lord McCluskey has referred to as the "blurring of important boundaries" and the arrogant and obstructive "wha's like us"' approach to human rights principles espoused in the Supreme Court and European Court.

As a justice campaigner and supporter of independence, however, I have been encouraged to approach the referendum confident that a vote for independence will result in a new Scottish constitution which not only enshrines these principles of justice and equality but produces a government committed to that cause. (...)

Above all we require visionary voices offering escape from the old systems and self-serving values which have suffocated dissent and devalued justice. We need to develop the political will to ensure that our justice system and its institutions serve justice for all and not the self-interest of a minority elite.

I would be the first to accept that my Yes vote will be a considerable act of faith and that difficult times lie ahead, but at least it echoes Nelson Mandela's hope: "May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears."

An American conservative on Scottish independence, Megrahi and Lockerbie

[What follows is an excerpt from an article by San Francisco Chronicle conservative columnist Debra J Saunders published yesterday on the newspaper’s SFGate website:]

In June, President Obama spoke against an “aye” vote when he spoke of America’s “deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies that we will ever have, the United Kingdom, remains strong, robust, united and an effective partner.” Obama should have used stronger language, as he will need a strong United Kingdom in the war (yes, war) against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

It can be no accident that a masked Islamic State henchman engaged in the brutal beheading of aid worker David Haines, a Brit and a Scotsman, as the big vote looms. [Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny] MacAskill has told Sky News that a “yes” vote would bring the very liberal Scotland freedom from decisions made under the coalition government of conservative Prime Minister David Cameron — that is, freedom from British defense spending and any wars into which the United Kingdom is drawn.

But it’s not that easy to opt out of war when terrorists are willing to export it — as MacAskill well should know. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270, including 11 Scots on the ground. A Scottish court found Libyan intelligence agent Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty. He received a life sentence that left him eligible for parole after 20 years, but served a mere eight years in a Scottish prison. On the dubious ground that prostate cancer left Megrahi with less than three months to live, MacAskill granted Megrahi “compassionate” release in 2009. The son of the late Moammar Khadafy flew the terrorist home to a hero’s welcome on a tarmac in Tripoli, where Scotland’s worst mass murderer lived into 2012. [RB: That son's account of the "hero's welcome" can be read here.] Salmond explained, “Sometimes someone has to break the cycle of retribution with an act of compassion.” It’s a shame his Scottish National Party doesn’t feel the same way about Great Britain.

The Scottish independence referendum, Lockerbie and Megrahi

[What follows is a brief extract from a long article about the Scottish independence referendum on the widely-followed US news and comment website News Junkie Post by John Goss, one of the site’s editors:]

Should the Yes campaign succeed, Alex Salmond, the Leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Member of the Scottish Parliament, will almost certainly head the new government. Mr Salmond appears to be quite an establishment figure. Like David Cameron and all prime ministers since the Lockerbie bombing, Salmond has opposed a public inquiry into a tragedy for which Abdelbaset al Megrahi was blamed and imprisoned when it is widely believed today that Megrahi was in no way involved. Though Salmond will get his assured place in history with a Yes vote, he will not be head of parliament indefinitely, and one day the Scottish people might choose to elect another Kier Hardie to bring real justice to the impoverished.

[A report in today’s edition of The Herald on the referendum voting intentions of people in the traditionally Labour stronghold of Kilmarnock contains the following:]

Marie Clowes, 56, is a good example of the kind of Labour voter who is voting "Yes". (...)

She said: "What changed my mind was Mrs Thatcher died and it awakened feelings of anger about the Tories and I thought to myself: 'While Nelson Mandela was being decried down there as a terrorist by the Iron Lady, he was getting the freedom of Glasgow'.

"And then the next thing I thought was that when the whole world was against us, Kenny MacAskill freed Abdelbasset al-Megrahi to international condemnation. It was these two things that made me stop and say: 'Wait a minute, we can be different'. I think there is a different culture in Scotland. We cannot save the English working class - they have got to save themselves."

Because of Megrahi US intelligence "wouldn't cooperate with independent Scotland"

[What follows is an excerpt from one of many articles in today’s edition of The Mail on Sunday explaining how the sky will fall if Scotland is so foolish as to vote to become an independent country:]

An independent Scotland will leave the rest of the UK exposed to acts of terrorism from groups such as Islamic State, security experts warned last night.

They say that on the day of independence Scotland will lose the services of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and the rest of the UK’s intelligence-gathering operations.

Its newly created Scottish security and intelligence agency is expected to be left with just 720 spies to defend the new state – and it will no longer be able to rely on the cooperation of the American agencies, who view Scotland with deep suspicion after the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. (...)

And former security minister Lord West warned that Britain and America could be forced to spy on Scotland, which will be considered an alien state. If Scotland doesn’t have the resources or wherewithal to guard against Islamic extremists who have returned from Syria and Iraq then the UK will have no choice but to treat Scotland as hostile.

He said: ‘From the moment they separate they become a foreign country. As far as MI6 is concerned, they’re aliens. They haven’t thought this through. It’s deeply worrying.’

The disgrace that is the Lockerbie prosecution

[The following is an excerpt from a letter by Neil McPherson published in today's edition of The Herald:]

The Scottish legal system, which I was brought up to believe was something to be proud of and the envy of the world, is being dismantled. The cornerstone of that system is corroboration, a concept which virtually all the leading authorities, and the judiciary considered a crucial element within our (now loosely termed) common law system.

With the disgrace that is the Lockerbie prosecution already secured for history, our First Minister was furious that the Cadder decision (by the Supreme Court, to rule that suspects be offered legal advice prior to and during interview become part of Scots law). His reaction was to secure the opinion of one of the few members of the judiciary who did not believe that corroboration was a necessary safeguard to minimise miscarriages of justice and to ensure fairness, and the Lord Justice Clerk provided the First Minister with the findings he hoped for.

Scotland today is being told that a vote for independence will lead to a fairer society. The evidence so far is that those advocating this change have produced and continue to produce a legal system where fairness plays no part and where right-wing ideology rules supreme.

[It should be pointed out that “the disgrace that is the Lockerbie prosecution” was perpetrated under a Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish administration, both of which parties are campaigning against independence for Scotland.]