A convenient stitch-up

What follows is a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in The Herald (and in this blog) on this date in 2008:

A recent newspaper article claims that Mr Blair's already publicised "memorandum of understanding" (as Whitehall decided to call it) was really negotiated to secure a huge contract for BP in the Libyan oil industry.

Readers will remember that even without knowledge of a cynical commercial reason for the agreement, there was concern as to its effect on Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi's position, and anger at the failure to consult the Scottish Government.

We now hear Jack Straw has admitted that Megrahi's transfer to Libya to serve the rest of his sentence for the Lockerbie bombing was essential to the completion of the deal. [RB: I cannot trace the Straw admission to which Dr Swire here refers. But here is a later relevant item: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/straw-admits-lockerbie-trade-link.html]

The Crown Office maintains there is no question of Megrahi being allowed to be repatriated while his second appeal is in process. It is clear this appeal could not proceed without embarrassing revelations emerging over evidence led at Zeist, and in the view of many, the prosecution case would fail.

Megrahi is determined to clear his name. What is to stop the Crown now abandoning the case, thus serving "the national interest" (as exemplified by the Libya-BP deal)?

At the last hearing in Edinburgh High Court the prosecution were still not prepared to divulge the contents of a document (from abroad) to the defence. This failure would be likely to mean that the court would have to declare a fair appeal impossible. Already the Crown were talking of obtaining public interest immunity (PII) certificates to "protect" the document from being divulged.

Lockerbie relatives have bitter memories of threats of PII certificates being prepared against us. If the Crown abandons the case, or if the court cannot proceed without the document, Libya, Whitehall and BP would all be delighted. Abandonment would presumably result in the verdict being declared unsafe and overturned, in view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's published view that the Zeist trial might not have been fair.

Scotland, her government and her justice system would have been used as an expendable tool to achieve a politically, and now commercially, convenient stitch-up. The relatives would see that their legitimate interests in seeking to find out who really murdered their loved ones and why their families were not protected, had again been treated with cynical derision, this time on the altar of profit.

Have we really sunk so low?

Lockerbie, the Lord Advocate and conflict of interest

The Lord Advocate is the head of the prosecution system in Scotland. All serious (solemn) cases are brought in his name and prosecuted by him or one of his deputes (or, in the sheriff court, by a procurator fiscal who is a member of his department, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service). In the investigation of crime, the police are legally obliged to obey any directions given by the Lord Advocate or on his behalf. 

Police Scotland are currently investigating serious allegations of criminal misconduct in the course of the Lockerbie criminal investigation, prosecution and trial. The allegations are directed against, amongst others, police officers, Crown Office personnel involved in the prosecution, and forensic scientists instructed and called as witnesses by the Crown Office. The current investigation is a rigorous and professional one. It is likely to be concluded later this year.

Under the current law the investigators’ report will be submitted to the Lord Advocate. Even if that report reaches the conclusion that there are grounds for prosecution, it is for the Lord Advocate to decide whether any prosecutions should in fact be brought. He could decide not to proceed.

Given that any charges would be against (i) police officers acting under the oversight of, and subject to direction by, the Crown Office; (ii) forensic scientists instructed and called as witnesses by the Crown Office; and (iii) members of the Crown Office’s prosecution team at the Lockerbie trial, there is an obvious conflict of interest involved in the current head of the Crown Office being the person to decide whether prosecutions should be commenced. This is all the more so when one considers recent statements dismissive of concerns about the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and conviction made by the present Lord Advocate while Police Scotland’s investigation was still live and ongoing (not to mention older such statements).

In these circumstances it is submitted that now, before Police Scotland’s report is ready for submission, the necessary steps should be taken to avoid the Lord Advocate finding himself in the embarrassing position regarding conflict of interest that the report’s landing on his desk would place him and the Crown Office in. The police report should rather be handed to, and the decision whether prosecutions ought to follow should be devolved to, an independent lawyer outwith the Crown Office. Our American cousins in analogous situations make use of a special prosecutor or independent counsel. This is one area in which we can learn from them. Why not start putting the mechanism in place now?

Justice Committee keeps open Megrahi petition

At its meeting this morning the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee decided unanimously to keep open Justice for Megrahi’s petition. This enables the Committee to continue to maintain a watching brief in relation to Lockerbie developments, in particular Police Scotland’s ongoing investigation of JFM’s allegations of criminality in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial; and the joint application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission by Megrahi family members and relatives of Lockerbie victims. The Committee’s proceedings can be viewed here. The speech by John Finnie MSP (and especially his critical remarks about recent statements by the Lord Advocate) merits particular attention.

Rev’d John Mosey, Dr Jim Swire, Iain McKie, Robert Forrester and I were present during the session.

The Justice Committee and the Megrahi petition

A reminder that consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and conviction (PE1370) forms part of agenda item 2 for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held today, Tuesday, at 10am in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The agenda and supporting documents can be accessed here. The proceedings can be followed live on Parliament TV.

Not Guilty pleas entered by Megrahi and Fhimah

[What follows is the text of a report from The Associated Press news agency published on this date fifteen years ago:]

The two Libyan defendants charged in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, pleaded innocent today at a pretrial hearing in the Scottish High Court. Although the trial is scheduled to begin May 3 at a former US air base in the Netherlands, the pretrial session was held in Edinburgh because the defendants did not express a desire to be present.

"In the absence of my client, I formally enter a plea of not guilty to the indictments," said defense attorney Bill Taylor, representing defendant Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Attorney Richard Keen entered an innocent plea on behalf of co-defendant Lamen Khalifa Fhimah. The pleas, which had been expected at a later stage, were a surprise ending at a one-hour hearing held to resolve a disagreement between prosecutors and defense lawyers on measures to conceal the identities of sensitive witnesses. The two sides agreed that the measures would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Both sides also said they were ready to begin the trial on May 3, following several postponements since the suspects last April were handed over by Libya for trial in the Netherlands.

Out of court negotiations between prosecutors and the defense team have resulted in agreements on evidence that may shorten the length of the trial, previously estimated at one year. "Good progress is being made as to the agreement of noncontroversial evidence," said Taylor. As a result, he expected that hundreds of witnesses would not have to appear to give testimony. Last month, the Scotland on Sunday newspaper reported that the prosecution's star witness had watered down his testimony that he saw Al-Megrahi placing a suspicious suitcase on the luggage carousel at Malta airport, where both of them worked. That suitcase allegedly made its way to Frankfurt and then London, where prosecutors say it was placed aboard the Pan Am airliner.

When defense attorneys recently interviewed the witness, identified as Libyan defector Abu Maged Jiacha [RB: normally written Abdul Majid Giaka], in the United States, he said he saw someone who looked like Al-Megrahi take the suitcase off the carousel, according to the newspaper report. The reported change was seen as a setback to the prosecution case. At a pretrial hearing in December in the Netherlands, prosecutors had requested permission to have witnesses appear in disguises. They argued that identification by the public would jeopardize the lives and livelihoods of the witnesses. Many among the more than 1,000 prosecution witnesses are present or former employees of US and European intelligence agencies.

According to several legal sources and media reports, Jiacha wore a blond lady's wig and heavy makeup during the encounter with defense lawyers, held in the back of a van traveling through suburban Washington. Today's hearing was told by Bill Taylor QC, for Megrahi, that the trial courtroom will be divided in two by a glass screen, with the public on one side and the well of the court on the other. Blinds would be raised, covering about half the glass, preventing the public from seeing the witnesses, he said.

Detailing the revised Crown request on the identity of witnesses, the Solicitor General said the judge had already ruled out elaborate methods of disguise such as masks. He said the judge had made clear it was always open to a witness to alter his appearance by methods like growing a beard or changing his hair style, and the issues could to be dealt with on a witness-by-witness basis. "The purpose ... is to prevent the identity of the witnesses travelling further than the well of the court," he said. Mr Boyd said former East German security service members had indicated "reluctance - in one case extreme reluctance" to come to court if their true identities were revealed.

The Crown (prosecution) also revealed that it would not seek to determine where in the Camp Zeist courtroom observers appointed by the UN should sit. Mr Boyd said the Crown would not seek to prevent UN observers at the trial from having the same view of witnesses as was visible to the two accused men.

Conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory

[On 31 January 2001, Abdelbaset Megrahi was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. Here is something that I wrote on 1 February:]

The Reasons for Convicting Megrahi In paragraph 89 of the Opinion of the Court the judges say: “We are aware that in relation to certain aspects of the case there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications.  We are also aware that there is a danger that by selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified.” The danger may have been recognised.  But it has not been avoided. i.    Who was the purchaser of the clothing and when did he do it? The judges held it proved (a) that it was Megrahi who bought from Mary’s House in Malta the clothes and umbrella which were in the suitcase with the bomb and (b) that the date of purchase was 7 December 1988 (when Megrahi was on Malta) and not 23 November 1988 (when he was not). As regards (a), the most that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, would say (either in his evidence in court or in a series of police statements) was that Megrahi “resembled a lot” the purchaser, a phrase which he equally used with reference to Abu Talb, one of those named in the special defence of incrimination lodged on behalf of Megrahi.  Gauci had also described the purchaser to the police as being six feet tall and over 50 years of age. The evidence at the trial established (i) that Megrahi is 5 feet 8 inches tall and (ii) that in late 1988 he was 36 years of age.  On this material the judges found in fact that Megrahi was the purchaser. As regards (b), the evidence of Tony Gauci was that when the purchaser left his shop it was raining (or at least drizzling) to such an extent that his customer thought it advisable to buy an umbrella  to protect himself while he went in search of a taxi. The unchallenged meteorological evidence established that while it had rained on 23 November at the relevant time, it was unlikely that it had rained at all on 7 December, and if it had it would have been only a few drops, insufficient to wet the street.  On this material, the judges found in fact that the clothes were purchased on 7 December. ii.    Did the bomb start from Malta? The judges held it proved that there was a piece of unaccompanied baggage on Flight KM 180 from Malta to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988 which was then carried on to Heathrow.  The evidence supporting that finding was a computer printout which could be interpreted to indicate that a piece of baggage went through the particular luggage coding station at Frankfurt used for baggage from KM 180 and was routed towards the feeder flight to Heathrow, at a time consistent with its having been offloaded from KM 180. Against this, the evidence from Malta Airport was to the effect that there was no unaccompanied bag on that flight to Frankfurt.  All luggage on that flight was accounted for.  The number of bags loaded into the hold matched the number of bags checked in (and subsequently collected) by the passengers on the aircraft.  The court nevertheless held it proved that there had been a piece of unaccompanied baggage on Flight KM 180. iii.   Where did the fragment of timer come from? An important link to Libya in the evidence was a fragment of circuit board from a MST-13 timer manufactured by MeBo. Timers of this model were supplied predominantly to Libya (though a few did go elsewhere, such as to the Stasi in East Germany).  This fragment is also important since it is the only piece of evidence that indicates that the Lockerbie bomb was detonated by a stand-alone timing mechanism, as distinct from a short-term timer triggered by a barometric device, of the type displayed in the bombs and equipment found at Neuss in the Autumn Leaves operation.  The provenance of this vitally important piece of evidence was challenged by the defence, and in their written Opinion the judges accept that in a number of respects this fragment, for reasons that were never satisfactorily explained, was not dealt with by the investigators and forensic scientists in the same way as other pieces of electronic circuit board (of which there were many).  The judges say that they are satisfied that there is no sinister reason for the differential treatment. But they do not find it necessary enlighten us regarding the reasons for their satisfaction. These are some of the many factors that lead me to be astonished that the court found itself able to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi, and which equally convince me that his conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The announcement of the verdict

[What follows is a transcript of the proceedings in the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist on this date fourteen years ago:]

Proceedings commenced at 11.04 a.m.

THE CLERK: Call the diet, Her Majesty's Advocate against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. Take your seat, gentlemen, please. My Lords, have you reached a verdict in respect of each accused on the second alternative charge as now amended?

LORD SUTHERLAND: We have.

THE CLERK: Would you give me, please, your verdict in respect of the first named accused, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Guilty. There are certain deletions to the indictment. In subhead (e), in line 4, delete from the words "and you" to the end of that subhead. In subhead (g), in the fourth line, delete the words "said suitcase, or"; and in the following line, the word "similar."

THE CLERK: That is all the deletions, My Lord?

LORD SUTHERLAND: These are all the deletions.

THE CLERK: Is that verdict unanimous, or by a majority?

LORD SUTHERLAND: Unanimous.

THE CLERK: Would you give me, please, your verdict in respect of the second named accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Not guilty.

THE CLERK: Is that, My Lords, unanimous, or by a majority?

LORD SUTHERLAND: Unanimous.

THE CLERK: I will now record the verdict, My Lords. My Lords, is the verdict truly recorded as follows: The court unanimously find the accused Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi guilty on the second alternative charge, but that under deletion of the words "and you Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah did there and then cause a suitcase to be introduced to Malta" in lines 4 to 6 of subhead (e) of the said charge, and under deletion of the words "said suitcase, or," in line 4 of subhead (g), and deletion of the word "similar" in line 5 of subhead (g), unanimously find the accused Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah not guilty.

Is that a true record, My Lord?

LORD SUTHERLAND: That is correct.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, in view of the verdict of the court, you are now discharged and are free to go.

MR KEEN: My Lords, in light of the verdict of the court, I would move on behalf of myself and my junior counsel for leave to withdraw.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Certainly, Mr Keen.

MR KEEN: I'm obliged, My Lords.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Lord Advocate.

THE LORD ADVOCATE: My Lords, I move for sentence. Megrahi is 49 years of age, his date of birth being the 1st of April 1952. So far as is known to the Crown, he is married and has children. A petition warrant was granted for his arrest on the 13th of November 1991. He was delivered to the Netherlands on the 5th of April 1999, when he was arrested on a provisional extradition warrant issued by the Dutch authorities, and having waived his rights to contest extradition, he was arrested by Scottish police officers the same day. He was committed for further examination in custody on the 6th of April 1999. He was fully committed on the 14th of April 1999 and has been in custody since that date. My Lords, in accordance with normal practice, as he is a non-British citizen, he has been served with a notice under Section 6(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, and it is open to Your Lordships to recommend in terms of Section 3(6) of that Act that he be deported if and when he is released from custody in the future. My Lords, the names of those who died were read to the court on the 5th of May 2000. In any ordinary case, Your Lordships would have heard something of the circumstances of the deceased and the family left behind. In this case it is not possible to do that, and I don't intend to try. I need hardly say to the court that each one left relatives, wives, husbands, parents and children. Something of the scale of the impact can be gleaned from the fact that more than 400 parents lost a son or a daughter; 46 parents lost their only child; 65 women were widowed; and 11 men lost their wives. More than 140 lost a parent, and seven children lost both parents. My Lords, they, together with the other friends and their relatives left behind, are also victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Lord Advocate. Mr Taylor, I should say at the outset that as you will appreciate, having regards to the nature of this offence, the court may have to consider a recommendation under Section 205(4) of the 1995 Act. We should say that the written reasons for the verdict will be available shortly, by which I mean within the next half hour or so. We do not know if you would wish to see these reasons before addressing the matter of a possible recommendation, but if you should so wish, obviously we shall be only too glad to give you time to do so.

MR TAYLOR: I am grateful to Your Lordship for that indication. I have given, as Your Lordship would anticipate, some consideration to the matter, and I am content that Your Lordships should proceed.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Very well. Thank you, Mr Taylor.

MR TAYLOR: There are two matters that I should draw to Your Lordships' attention. The first is in relation to my client. He maintains his innocence, and therefore there is nothing I can say by way of mitigation.

The second is in relation to the point at which Your Lordships will require to determine the sentence has to run from, and the submission I make to the court is that it should be from the 5th of April 1999.

Your Lordships are entitled to make recommendations on how long -- given the mandatory nature of the life sentence is concerned -- how long the individual should remain in prison prior to release being considered, and I have taken the view that that's a matter within Your Lordships' discretion, having heard all of the evidence in the case, and I have no submissions to make on it

LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Mr Taylor. We shall take time to consider the matter of a recommendation. The court will adjourn until 2.00, when sentence will be pronounced.

Proceedings recessed at 11.18 a.m.

 

Proceedings resumed at 2.00 p.m.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder is imprisonment for life, and that is the sentence that we impose. That sentence will be backdated to the 5th of April 1999. In view of the horrendous nature of this crime, we think it right that we should make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the minimum period which you should serve before being considered for release on licence, but for the age that you will have attained at the time of your release and the fact that you will be serving this sentence in what is to you a foreign country, the period that we recommend is substantially less than it would otherwise have been. However, we consider that the appropriate recommendation to the Secretary of State is that a period of 20 years should elapse before you are considered for release. You will also be recommended for deportation at the end of the sentence.

That is all.

Proceedings recessed at 2.04 p.m.

[RB: And then the struggle began to correct this monstrous miscarriage of justice.]

Megrahi petition on Justice Committee agenda

Consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and conviction (PE1370) forms part of agenda item 2 for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 10am in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The agenda and supporting documents can be accessed here. They include a report on a meeting between representatives of Justice for Megrahi and Police Scotland held on 24 November 2014 (Annexe B) and a letter from the JFM Committee to the Convener of the Justice Committee dated 24 December 2014 (Annexe C). The latter reads as follows:

We refer to previous Justice Committee decisions to keep the above petition open until the ongoing Police Scotland major enquiry into JFM’s 9 criminal allegations, made in October 2012, are investigated and reported on. 

We have no doubt that you and the committee members are aware of last weekend’s public interventions by the Crown Office and Lord Advocate in relation to their Lockerbie investigations. These comments are comprehensively reviewed in Professor Robert Black’s Lockerbie blog at http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk and across the media. 

You will recollect JFM’s earlier submissions where we voiced our serious concerns in relation to the Crown Office/Lord Advocate‘s public rejection of our criminal allegations in 2012 before the police investigation had even started. 

It is quite clear that yet again these authorities, despite being aware of the ongoing police enquiry, are publicly stating that they have no doubts about the guilt of Mr Megrahi and that any who do not share that view are conspiracy theorists. 

In making these statements it seems to JFM that the Crown Office and Lord Advocate have effectively prejudged the police enquiry, dismissed the criminal investigation as irrelevant and severely compromised that investigation. 

Given that this is the Crown’s second public rejection of our allegations we cannot see how we, the Justice Committee or public can have any confidence that when the police report is delivered to the Crown Office and Lord Advocate it will be dealt with in a fair and objective manner. 

The Lord Advocate, as Scotland’s independent prosecutor in the public interest and a member of the Scottish Government, has severely compromised his constitutional position by making these comments when the enquiry is going on. 

We would value your observations and hope that your committee takes steps to clarify the Lord Advocate’s position in relation to these matters. 

It is important to underline that we value the excellent working relationship that we have forged with Police Scotland and have confidence in the integrity and thoroughness of their enquiry. 

Sadly these latest public comments by the Lord Advocate only serve to undermine this cooperation and trust and insult those who honestly believe that a public enquiry is needed into all the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie disaster.

"Conspiracy theorist" bites back

One year ago today, John Ashton published his demolition of Magnus Linklater’s Scottish Review article stigmatising Justice for Megrahi campaigners as obsessive conspiracy theorists, impervious to fact or reason. Mr Ashton’s rebuttal appears in the Scottish Review too, with an expanded version on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website. If you haven’t read these pieces you have a treat in store.

Secrets and lies: Gaddafi and the Labour Party

[This is the headline over an article published yesterday on the Newsnet.scot website which includes a long excerpt from a forthcoming book by G A Ponsonby. The whole article merits close attention. The following are extracts:]

Secret documents emerged recently to confirm details of how British intelligence agencies engaged in a series of joint operations with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s government.

The revelations, made first in The Guardian newspaper, indicate the bizarre attitudes of Labour while in government in London and in opposition in Edinburgh. The party said one thing in opposition, and did the opposite – simultaneously – in government.

According to The Guardian: “The papers recovered from the dictatorship’s archives include secret correspondence from MI6, MI5 reports on Libyans living in the UK, a British intelligence assessment marked “UK/Libya Eyes Only – Secret”

“Gaddafi’s agents recorded MI5 as warning in September 2006 that the two countries’ agencies should take steps to ensure that their joint operations would never be ‘discovered by lawyers or human rights organisations and the media’.”

At the time of the joint operations, which it is claimed involved the rendition of Libyans for torture at the hands of Gaddafi’s regime, Tony Blair had also been negotiating a secret deal aimed at extraditing a healthy Abdelbaset al-Megrahi back to Libya.  The Labour Prime Minister also helped broker an oil deal for BP in what came to be known as the “Deal in the Desert”. (...)

In December 2010 the story took an unexpected twist.  News emerged of the publication of confidential US Government files by controversial free-speech group Wikileaks.  Listed in the files were details of confidential top level communications involving US and UK officials.  The communications included discussions on Megrahi and they revealed the UK Labour Government had been secretly helping the Libyans.

The files proved that far from being against the release of Megrahi as they had claimed, the Labour government had fully supported the decision to free the Libyan.

Britain feared “harsh and immediate” consequences, according to the leaked cables, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison.

The US charge d’affaires in London, Richard LeBaron, wrote in a cable to Washington in October 2008:

“The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] flat out that there will be ‘enormous repercussions’ for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi’s early release is not handled properly.”

Labour politicians had claimed publicly that the decision to release Megrahi was an embarrassment to Scotland – but the documents showed the Labour leadership were in fact favouring his release.

The cables showed that the UK government was aware of dire repercussions should Megrahi die in a Scottish prison:

“GOL (Govt of Libya) officials have warned U.K. Emboffs in demarches here that the consequences for the U.K.-Libya bilateral relationship would be “dire” were al-Megrahi to die in Scottish prison. Specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all U.K. commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties and demonstrations against official U.K. facilities. GOL officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of U.K. diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk.”

The documents also revealed that the US had been privately suspicious of Tony Blair’s “Deal in the Desert” in 2007. The cable stated:

“Saif al-Islam implied that former UK PM Tony Blair had raised Megrahi with the Libyan leader in connection with lucrative business deals during Blair’s 2007 visit to Libya. [Note: Rumors that Blair made linkages between Megrahi’s release and trade deals have been longstanding among Embassy contacts. End note.]”

The Guardian reported that the leaked documents claimed:  “Anger with the British persists in some American circles, and UK ministers, Labour and Tory, have attempted to distance London from the release insisting it was purely a Scottish decision.”

Further cables from the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, revealed that the US position was to resist voicing opposition to Megrahi’s release at the time, so as not to risk Libyan retaliation against US interests.

Mr Cretz warned the US itself should keep quiet in order to protect its interests:  “If the [US government] publicly opposes al-Megrahi’s release or is perceived to be complicit in a decision to keep al-Megrahi in prison, [America’s Libyan diplomatic] post judges that US interests could face similar consequences.”

The documents suggested that both the UK Labour government and its US counterpart had unleashed false, and seemingly co-ordinated, furore about the Scottish government’s decision to release a dying Megrahi.

The cables also made clear that bribes in the form of “treats” were offered to the Scottish Government by Libyan diplomats, but refused point blank.  The cables revealed that US officials had privately acknowledged that the Scottish Government had acted in good faith at all times and had nothing to gain whereas the UK government, according to the leaked documents, gained massively from Megrahi’s illness and subsequent release.

The cables revealed the Americans were aware that the issue had been hijacked by Unionist politicians at Holyrood who were trying to capitalise on it for political gain: “Meanwhile, local Scottish opposition politicians are using the issue to call into question the SNP government’s credibility and competence.”

“Naysmith underscored that Scotland received “nothing” for releasing Megrahi (as has been widely suggested in the UK and U.S. media), while the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya.”

The publication of the secret cables was very bad news for Labour.  If true, then Blair himself had offered Megrahi as a bribe in order to clinch the BP oil deal. Both the UK and US governments were aware of the possible economic and geo-political repercussions for both nations if Megrahi was allowed to die in prison.

The documents featured as the main news item on BBC Scotland that day.  However it wasn’t the Labour party which found itself the target of the BBC’s reporting.  Somehow the corporation had managed to turn the incredible story into one attacking the SNP.

“First Minister made the decision to release the Lockerbie Bomber” was the introduction read out by the newsreader on the lunchtime news.

An online article appeared on the BBC Scotland news site with a headline that read:

“Salmond rejects new Megrahi claim”

Incredibly, BBC Scotland had decided the main story from the secret cables was not the former UK Labour government’s privately backing Megrahi’s release, but a short sentence related to Alex Salmond.

The BBC said:

“The leaked documents also appeared to contradict the official Scottish government position on who would make the final decision to release Megrahi.

“In August last year, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill insisted it was his decision and his alone.

“But the cables claimed Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond told the UK Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, he would make that call.”

Faced with a virtual banquet of information relating to Libya, the UK Labour government and the US government, BBC Scotland had managed to find something they could use against Salmond.  On that evening’s Reporting Scotland the real revelations were ignored as BBC Scotland embellished the reference to Salmond and managed to turn it into that evening’s main news story.

Like the BP oil deal, the BBC had managed to deflect attention away from Labour and towards the SNP.  It was an incredible editorial decision by BBC Scotland news editors.  More so because in a radio interview earlier that day, Jack Straw had let slip that David Miliband, when Foreign Secretary, had written to the Scottish Government saying the UK Government did not want Megrahi to die in prison.

Straw told interviewer John Humphrys: “Somebody did write to the Scottish Government, that’s a matter of public record.

“It’s been out for well over a year, which is a letter from the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband which set out that, and here I significantly paraphrase, but it said ‘other things being equal we think it would be better if al-Megrahi did not die in prison.”