[What follows is the text of a letter sent yesterday by Dr Jim Swire to Senator John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate committee on foreign relations, which has scheduled a hearing into the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. An article based on the letter can be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
My deeply loved elder daughter Flora aged 23 was among the victims aboard the plane. I think that all affected families, both here and in the US would welcome knowing the whole truth about every aspect of who caused the disaster and why they were not stopped.
I’m sure we are all united in that, though many of those you represent are much more confident in believing in the integrity of the trial process to which Mr Megrahi was subjected than are some of us over here.
So may I welcome you and your band of 4 Senators in your search for aspects of that truth, but this letter proposes reasons why it would be wise to consider the question of why the atrocity was not prevented as well as Megrahi’s guilt or innocence rather than only the reasons for his release.
I do not feel proud of the circumstances that have led me to hope that representatives of the USA rather than my own nation should be searching for the truth on our behalf. Below are some reasons why that is now a hope for us.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry (= inquest) was held in Scotland which found that the disaster had been preventable, and that the aircraft had been under the ‘Host State Protection of the United Kingdom’ at all relevant times. The failure of any UK Prime Minister to date to inquire into this ghastly failure of UK responsibility is enough in itself to justify this letter appealing to you.
We have approached every Prime Minster to seek a full inquiry and been as often rejected. David Cameron has not had time to reply yet, but I think you should know a little of the roles of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in particular.
Mrs Thatcher refused even to meet us (our group is called UK Families-Flight 103) to discuss an inquiry. She decreed that the Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) police, the UK's smallest police force should conduct the criminal investigation, even though she must have known that The Metropolitan police, through their special anti-terrorist branch, had already discovered a break-in at Heathrow airport the night before Lockerbie, which had given the untraced intruder access to the Iran Air facilities there, close to where bags were loaded for Pan Am 103 the next night.
The information concerning the break-in remained unknown to the Megrahi trial it only became known after the verdict had been reached,. when a junior Heathrow security man publicly complained that his evidence to the Metropolitan police early in 1989 had not been heard in the trial. Why did that happen?
In 1993 (two years after the indictment of the Libyans) Mrs Thatcher published a book The Downing Street Years. In it (p 449) she wrote that following the USAF raid on Tripoli/Bengazi in 1986 Gaddafi had been humbled and “the much vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. There was a marked decrease in Libyan terrorism in succeeding years.”
‘Succeeding years’ would include 1988 and therefore the Lockerbie disaster. Why did she write that, though in power when Lockerbie happened?
We also requested Tony Blair to launch a full inquiry. He did meet with us but after a month of ‘asking the relevant people’ told us that ‘they’ did not consider any further inquiry necessary. When he went to see Colonel Gaddafi for the so called ‘Deal in the Desert’, the first we heard of it was through the media.
Scotland’s Criminal Case Review Commission meanwhile had found that the trial might well have been a miscarriage of justice, while the UN’s special observer to the trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna had strongly criticised the trial as biased and the verdict as ‘incomprehensible’. Many jurists agree, and some would voluntarily give evidence before you.
As a result of the SCCRC’s comments Mr Megrahi’s case was referred back to the High Court in Edinburgh. Many believed that re-examination of the evidence would be bound to overturn the verdict.
However a succession of delays ensued, but even so Mr Jack Straw, the Labour government’s Minister of Justice was reduced to overriding the wishes of the House of Commons Select Committee on Human Rights, in order to have the Prisoner Transfer Agreement up and running by the start of the appeal.
Many thought this looked like an attempt to stop the appeal and thus ‘save’ the verdict by sending Mr Megrahi home. It was a unusual and unwelcome breech of custom for a Committee to be overridden in this way.
In the event the Scots did not use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, but compassionate release, an option long enshrined in Scots law, when a prisoner has a short life prognosis (there is no ‘deadline’ of three months by the way) but for some reason Mr Megrahi withdrew his appeal, though this was not required for Compassionate release.
Was pressure put upon him to do so? Maybe a proper inquiry would answer that question too.
You may of course believe that it was pressure from BP which caused the panic, if Libya or BP were claiming that the UK was dragging her feet over her share of the ‘Deal in the Desert’.
Maybe you can find out whether it was that or a desire to 'protect' the verdict which motivated Mr Straw's precipitate actions.
Senator Kerry, I am heartened to hear that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has just undertaken to meet with you after all, according to today’s press. But I do wonder in view of the behaviour of successive UK governments, with all their delays and withholding of information over the past 21 years, and their failure to protect the plane in the first place, whether the Government of the UK is the right entity to hold an inquiry into this atrocity.
Would it be putting the fox in charge of the hencoop?
Previous UK governments have tried to ‘pass the buck’ to Scotland over the release of Megrahi, but there are far greater issues than that here. I do hope that David Cameron will be sufficiently independent of his predecessors to rebut the above fear: we too have just asked for a meeting with him to discuss an inquiry.
I understand that the Scottish authorities have agreed to cooperate with any appropriately empowered inquiry. Would you consider, in view of the multinational complexity of this case, whether a multinational board of respected individuals, a panel of jurists perhaps, should examine all aspects, including the behaviour of our Westminster administrations?
If so they would have to command the respect of the world and be seen to be independent of all those nations directly involved, which includes the USA of course. Such an inquiry would presumably require at least the full cooperation of the present UK administration.
Nelson Mandela said publicly just as the trial court was announced ‘No one country should be complainant prosecutor and judge’. We should not fall into the same trap again.
Please do not allow your determination to investigate this tragedy be thwarted by any one, it will be a tough call, but we relatives have a right to the whole truth.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
American influence on Lockerbie trial
[This is the heading over a letter from Marion Woolfson in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
I was very interested in the letter from Tom Minogue because, like him, I have serious doubts about Lockerbie (19 July)
I am a retired journalist (and former Scotsman columnist) and, although I was born and educated in Edinburgh, I wrote on the Middle East for 30 years.
As Mr Minogue has pointed out, the United Nations-appointed independent observer to the trial at the Scots court in the [Netherlands], Prof Hans Koechler, voiced his serious concerns that senior US Justice Department officials were in the body of the court and appeared to be directing the Crown Office prosecution staff.
This seems to confirm Lord Sutherland's judicial summation, for he pointed out that "there are undoubtedly problems. In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. In 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 evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
It was also revealed by Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West, that before the trial Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon and put up at the Hilton Hotel in Glasgow.
The judges were not told that, on the day of the bombing, there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area.
Tony Gauci was the Maltese shopkeeper who became the chief witness in the case because a suitcase containing goods he stocked was suddenly "found" among the debris and, although as Gauci could not identify some of the clothing in the suitcase nor could he remember the "owner's" appearance it was decided that the clothing had been wrapped round the bomb (surely if that were true, it would have been destroyed) and so the owner of the suitcase was the bomber.
Megrahi had been about to appeal but was unable to because of being released on compassionate grounds. Gauci has apparently gone to Australia, "assisted" by the gift of a million dollars.
I could have understood all the pathetic lies if they had come from an American source, but surely the Scots have more sense than to believe the rubbish that we have heard.
I was very interested in the letter from Tom Minogue because, like him, I have serious doubts about Lockerbie (19 July)
I am a retired journalist (and former Scotsman columnist) and, although I was born and educated in Edinburgh, I wrote on the Middle East for 30 years.
As Mr Minogue has pointed out, the United Nations-appointed independent observer to the trial at the Scots court in the [Netherlands], Prof Hans Koechler, voiced his serious concerns that senior US Justice Department officials were in the body of the court and appeared to be directing the Crown Office prosecution staff.
This seems to confirm Lord Sutherland's judicial summation, for he pointed out that "there are undoubtedly problems. In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. In 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 evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
It was also revealed by Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West, that before the trial Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon and put up at the Hilton Hotel in Glasgow.
The judges were not told that, on the day of the bombing, there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area.
Tony Gauci was the Maltese shopkeeper who became the chief witness in the case because a suitcase containing goods he stocked was suddenly "found" among the debris and, although as Gauci could not identify some of the clothing in the suitcase nor could he remember the "owner's" appearance it was decided that the clothing had been wrapped round the bomb (surely if that were true, it would have been destroyed) and so the owner of the suitcase was the bomber.
Megrahi had been about to appeal but was unable to because of being released on compassionate grounds. Gauci has apparently gone to Australia, "assisted" by the gift of a million dollars.
I could have understood all the pathetic lies if they had come from an American source, but surely the Scots have more sense than to believe the rubbish that we have heard.
SNP under pressure as Obama demands answers on Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Barack Obama has called for all the facts to be made public about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as he piled more pressure on the Scottish Government by describing its decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as heartbreaking for the victims’ families.
The US President told a White House press conference: “All of us here in the US were surprised, disappointed and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber … We welcome any additional information that will give us insights and better understanding of why the decision was made.”
With David Cameron, on his first prime ministerial trip to Washington, standing beside him, Obama added: “The key thing here is we have got a British Prime Minister who shares our anger over the decision and also objects to how it played out … The bottom line is that we all disagreed with it. It was a bad decision.”
Earlier, Cameron, having rejected calls for a UK public inquiry into the release of Megrahi, announced he had asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to launch a full review to see if any more documents could be published to give clarification and said that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would be consulted. (...)
Last night, the SNP Government, under intense fire, stood its ground and launched a thinly veiled counterattack against Washington and London.
A spokesman said: “The Scottish Government has already published all relevant information where we had the necessary permission to do so.
“The US authorities did not give us permission to publish their communications with the Scottish Government and the UK Government also requested non-publication of some correspondence.”
He stressed there was a difference between the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) negotiated by the British and Libyan Governments and compassionate release, a “totally different process based on entirely different criteria”. (...)
With BP still dominating headlines in America because of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, Cameron sought to allay US suspicions that the oil giant had a role in Megrahi’s release, saying: “That was not a decision taken by BP, it was a decision taken by the Scottish Government.” (...)
However, among the documents Sir Gus might look at are details of telephone conversations in late 2007 between Jack Straw, the then justice secretary, and Sir Mark Allen, a BP lobbyist who argued for a swift PTA between London and Tripoli.
At the time this could have led to Megrahi’s release from his Scottish jail – and helped the firm’s commercial interests.
The oil company has subsequently admitted its lobbying was aimed at Libya sealing a deal on drilling rights but has stressed that Sir Mark, a former MI6 agent, did not specifically lobby for Megrahi’s release.
At the beginning of this year, Straw turned down a Freedom of Information request to release details of his calls with BP. Last night, one Whitehall source told The Herald: “These documents could be the smoking gun.”
Barack Obama has called for all the facts to be made public about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as he piled more pressure on the Scottish Government by describing its decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as heartbreaking for the victims’ families.
The US President told a White House press conference: “All of us here in the US were surprised, disappointed and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber … We welcome any additional information that will give us insights and better understanding of why the decision was made.”
With David Cameron, on his first prime ministerial trip to Washington, standing beside him, Obama added: “The key thing here is we have got a British Prime Minister who shares our anger over the decision and also objects to how it played out … The bottom line is that we all disagreed with it. It was a bad decision.”
Earlier, Cameron, having rejected calls for a UK public inquiry into the release of Megrahi, announced he had asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to launch a full review to see if any more documents could be published to give clarification and said that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would be consulted. (...)
Last night, the SNP Government, under intense fire, stood its ground and launched a thinly veiled counterattack against Washington and London.
A spokesman said: “The Scottish Government has already published all relevant information where we had the necessary permission to do so.
“The US authorities did not give us permission to publish their communications with the Scottish Government and the UK Government also requested non-publication of some correspondence.”
He stressed there was a difference between the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) negotiated by the British and Libyan Governments and compassionate release, a “totally different process based on entirely different criteria”. (...)
With BP still dominating headlines in America because of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, Cameron sought to allay US suspicions that the oil giant had a role in Megrahi’s release, saying: “That was not a decision taken by BP, it was a decision taken by the Scottish Government.” (...)
However, among the documents Sir Gus might look at are details of telephone conversations in late 2007 between Jack Straw, the then justice secretary, and Sir Mark Allen, a BP lobbyist who argued for a swift PTA between London and Tripoli.
At the time this could have led to Megrahi’s release from his Scottish jail – and helped the firm’s commercial interests.
The oil company has subsequently admitted its lobbying was aimed at Libya sealing a deal on drilling rights but has stressed that Sir Mark, a former MI6 agent, did not specifically lobby for Megrahi’s release.
At the beginning of this year, Straw turned down a Freedom of Information request to release details of his calls with BP. Last night, one Whitehall source told The Herald: “These documents could be the smoking gun.”
Obama, Cameron tread cautiously on BP, Lockerbie
British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday rejected calls for an inquiry into whether BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, even as he sought to ease transatlantic tensions in talks with US President Barack Obama.
Determined not to let the Lockerbie controversy and BP's role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill overshadow their White House meeting, the two leaders reaffirmed the much-vaunted "special relationship" between their countries.
Cameron said he understood US anger over BP's role in the spill and tried to defuse US lawmakers' concerns that the company may have had a hand in Scottish authorities' release last year of a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
But Cameron, under pressure at home to stand up for the British energy giant against the bashing it has faced in Washington, also insisted it was in US and British interests for the company to remain strong and viable.
Obama, whose approval ratings have been undercut by public outrage over the spill ... also played down the simmering controversy over the Lockerbie case.
"I completely understand the anger that exists right across America. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a catastrophe," Cameron told reporters as he stood side by side with Obama in his first US visit since taking power in May.
"It is BP's role to cap the leak, clean up the mess and pay appropriate compensation," Cameron said.
But he also cautioned, "Let us not confuse the oil spill with the Libyan bomber."
Cameron insisted BP had no role in the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, which he opposed at the time as opposition leader, and pledged his government's aid in any US Senate probe into the matter.
Steering clear of any public disagreement, Obama said he was confident the British government would cooperate to make sure all the facts are known.
In an apparent bid to assuage US concerns, Cameron ordered his Cabinet secretary to review documents in the case and met US lawmakers on the issue on Tuesday.
But he rejected in advance their demands for a full British investigation. "I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision," Cameron said.
New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, one of four senators who met Cameron, said they were in agreement Megrahi should not have been released but that did not mean "case closed."
"Only with complete information about the circumstances surrounding al-Megrahi's release can we get the full understanding that is needed to determine the next steps," Menendez said in a statement after the meeting.
Menendez, who will chair a hearing next week on the release, also said Cameron gave assurances his government would cooperate with requests from the Senate.
[From a report on the website of the Reuters news agency.]
Determined not to let the Lockerbie controversy and BP's role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill overshadow their White House meeting, the two leaders reaffirmed the much-vaunted "special relationship" between their countries.
Cameron said he understood US anger over BP's role in the spill and tried to defuse US lawmakers' concerns that the company may have had a hand in Scottish authorities' release last year of a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
But Cameron, under pressure at home to stand up for the British energy giant against the bashing it has faced in Washington, also insisted it was in US and British interests for the company to remain strong and viable.
Obama, whose approval ratings have been undercut by public outrage over the spill ... also played down the simmering controversy over the Lockerbie case.
"I completely understand the anger that exists right across America. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a catastrophe," Cameron told reporters as he stood side by side with Obama in his first US visit since taking power in May.
"It is BP's role to cap the leak, clean up the mess and pay appropriate compensation," Cameron said.
But he also cautioned, "Let us not confuse the oil spill with the Libyan bomber."
Cameron insisted BP had no role in the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, which he opposed at the time as opposition leader, and pledged his government's aid in any US Senate probe into the matter.
Steering clear of any public disagreement, Obama said he was confident the British government would cooperate to make sure all the facts are known.
In an apparent bid to assuage US concerns, Cameron ordered his Cabinet secretary to review documents in the case and met US lawmakers on the issue on Tuesday.
But he rejected in advance their demands for a full British investigation. "I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision," Cameron said.
New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, one of four senators who met Cameron, said they were in agreement Megrahi should not have been released but that did not mean "case closed."
"Only with complete information about the circumstances surrounding al-Megrahi's release can we get the full understanding that is needed to determine the next steps," Menendez said in a statement after the meeting.
Menendez, who will chair a hearing next week on the release, also said Cameron gave assurances his government would cooperate with requests from the Senate.
[From a report on the website of the Reuters news agency.]
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
David Cameron orders release of secret Lockerbie bomber documents
This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. For a fleeting instant I naively entertained the thought that the documents might be those in respect of which the UK government, acting through then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, in Mr Megrahi's most recent appeal claimed public interest immunity on grounds of national security. What a silly-billy I am! The papers that are to be released are as follows:
'In Washington, Mr Cameron said: “I am asking the Cabinet Secretary in the UK to go back over all the paperwork and see if there is anything else that should be released so there is the clearest possible picture out there of what decision [ie to repatriate Mr Megrahi] was taken and why.
'“I do not currently think that another inquiry is the right way to go. I don’t need an inquiry to tell me what I already know, which is that it was a bad decision.”'
So there we are. The circumstances in which Mr Megrahi was returned to his homeland are to be the focus of the document review rather than the circumstances in which he was wrongly convicted. Any meaningful inquiry would, of course, be too embarrassing to both the UK and the USA to be contemplated. O tempora, O mores!
'In Washington, Mr Cameron said: “I am asking the Cabinet Secretary in the UK to go back over all the paperwork and see if there is anything else that should be released so there is the clearest possible picture out there of what decision [ie to repatriate Mr Megrahi] was taken and why.
'“I do not currently think that another inquiry is the right way to go. I don’t need an inquiry to tell me what I already know, which is that it was a bad decision.”'
So there we are. The circumstances in which Mr Megrahi was returned to his homeland are to be the focus of the document review rather than the circumstances in which he was wrongly convicted. Any meaningful inquiry would, of course, be too embarrassing to both the UK and the USA to be contemplated. O tempora, O mores!
Britain's ambassador to US faces axe over release of Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report on the Mail website. It reads in part:]
Britain’s ambassador in Washington is facing the axe over his role in the Lockerbie affair.
Diplomatic sources say Sir Nigel Sheinwald will be made the scapegoat for the diplomatic spat because he helped broker Tony Blair’s ‘deal in the desert’ with Libyan dictator Colonel Gadaffi.
British sources say they have been told by American officials that Sir Nigel is too close to Lockerbie case because he helped arrange lucrative Libyan contracts on behalf of BP, the company at the heart of the row.
The ambassador, who took up his post in 2007, would usually be expected to serve another two years. (...)
Senior coalition figures want to push Sir Nigel into retirement since he is also seen as a New Labour throwback after serving as Tony Blair’s senior foreign policy adviser.
A British source in Washington with close links to the Embassy said: ‘Sir Nigel is seen as tainted by the Lockerbie affair. The Tories have been looking for a way to ease him out for a while and this should help speed things along nicely.’
While the Scottish Government took the final decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on ‘health grounds’ after he was given just three months to live, the Government had already signed a prisoner transfer agreement paving the way for his return.
[You read it first here.]
Britain’s ambassador in Washington is facing the axe over his role in the Lockerbie affair.
Diplomatic sources say Sir Nigel Sheinwald will be made the scapegoat for the diplomatic spat because he helped broker Tony Blair’s ‘deal in the desert’ with Libyan dictator Colonel Gadaffi.
British sources say they have been told by American officials that Sir Nigel is too close to Lockerbie case because he helped arrange lucrative Libyan contracts on behalf of BP, the company at the heart of the row.
The ambassador, who took up his post in 2007, would usually be expected to serve another two years. (...)
Senior coalition figures want to push Sir Nigel into retirement since he is also seen as a New Labour throwback after serving as Tony Blair’s senior foreign policy adviser.
A British source in Washington with close links to the Embassy said: ‘Sir Nigel is seen as tainted by the Lockerbie affair. The Tories have been looking for a way to ease him out for a while and this should help speed things along nicely.’
While the Scottish Government took the final decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on ‘health grounds’ after he was given just three months to live, the Government had already signed a prisoner transfer agreement paving the way for his return.
[You read it first here.]
Megrahi release legal, US says
Scottish authorities had the right to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber, though Washington believes the decision was a poor one, a spokesman said. (...)
Embattled British oil company BP, which is to begin drilling off the coast of Libya later this year, has acknowledged it was involved in talks on the prisoner exchange but the company said it wasn't involved directly with Megrahi.
Clinton in response to lawmakers' complaints said that, while Washington was "strongly opposed" to the decision to release Megrahi, the move was carried out according to Scottish law.
PJ Crowley, a spokesman for the US State Department, clarified the government's stance by referring to Scottish authority.
"We have not doubted for a second that this was within the purview of Scottish authorities to make this decision," he said. "We just happen to believe it was a wrong decision."
[From a report on the website of the news agency UPI.]
Embattled British oil company BP, which is to begin drilling off the coast of Libya later this year, has acknowledged it was involved in talks on the prisoner exchange but the company said it wasn't involved directly with Megrahi.
Clinton in response to lawmakers' complaints said that, while Washington was "strongly opposed" to the decision to release Megrahi, the move was carried out according to Scottish law.
PJ Crowley, a spokesman for the US State Department, clarified the government's stance by referring to Scottish authority.
"We have not doubted for a second that this was within the purview of Scottish authorities to make this decision," he said. "We just happen to believe it was a wrong decision."
[From a report on the website of the news agency UPI.]
Cameron: ‘Megrahi should have died in jail’
[This is the headline over a report on the STV News website. It reads in part:]
David Cameron has said Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi "should have died in jail".
The Prime Minister made the comments as he sought to calm renewed criticism in the United States of his release amid fresh questions over the role played by oil giant BP.
Mr Cameron, making his first official visit to Washington since taking office, said the decision to free al-Megrahi had been "profoundly misguided" but denied that the beleaguered oil giant had been in any way involved.
Earlier, No 10 said that Mr Cameron had now agreed to meet a group of US senators who are pressing for a new investigation into the case.
Previously, officials had said that Mr Cameron was unable to find time for talks with the senators in his "very full schedule" and had instead offered them a meeting with the British ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald. (...)
During a radio interview in Washington, he said: "I will say to them (the senators) that I agree that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. I said it was wrong at the time.
"It was the Scottish Government that took that decision. They took it after proper process and what they saw as the right, compassionate reasons. I just happen to think it was profoundly misguided.
"He was convicted of the biggest mass murder and in my view he should have died in jail. I said that very, very clearly at the time; that is my view today.
"Of course BP has got to do everything necessary to cap the oil well, to clean up the spill, to pay compensation. I have met with BP and I know they want to do that and will do that.
"But let's be clear about who released al-Megrahi... it was a Government decision in the UK. It was the wrong decision. It was not the decision of BP - it was the decision of Scottish ministers."
[So much for the "respect" that the Tories said would characterise the new government's dealings with the Scottish government (and other devolved administrations). So much also for the policy of building bridges to the Libyan regime.]
David Cameron has said Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi "should have died in jail".
The Prime Minister made the comments as he sought to calm renewed criticism in the United States of his release amid fresh questions over the role played by oil giant BP.
Mr Cameron, making his first official visit to Washington since taking office, said the decision to free al-Megrahi had been "profoundly misguided" but denied that the beleaguered oil giant had been in any way involved.
Earlier, No 10 said that Mr Cameron had now agreed to meet a group of US senators who are pressing for a new investigation into the case.
Previously, officials had said that Mr Cameron was unable to find time for talks with the senators in his "very full schedule" and had instead offered them a meeting with the British ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald. (...)
During a radio interview in Washington, he said: "I will say to them (the senators) that I agree that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. I said it was wrong at the time.
"It was the Scottish Government that took that decision. They took it after proper process and what they saw as the right, compassionate reasons. I just happen to think it was profoundly misguided.
"He was convicted of the biggest mass murder and in my view he should have died in jail. I said that very, very clearly at the time; that is my view today.
"Of course BP has got to do everything necessary to cap the oil well, to clean up the spill, to pay compensation. I have met with BP and I know they want to do that and will do that.
"But let's be clear about who released al-Megrahi... it was a Government decision in the UK. It was the wrong decision. It was not the decision of BP - it was the decision of Scottish ministers."
[So much for the "respect" that the Tories said would characterise the new government's dealings with the Scottish government (and other devolved administrations). So much also for the policy of building bridges to the Libyan regime.]
Lockerbie questions 'for British government'
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads:]
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has said questions being asked about the Lockerbie bomber are matters for the UK government.
Prime Minister David Cameron is to meet US senators to discuss allegations BP lobbied for his release.
Mr MacAskill said he refused a bid to move Abelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Instead he released him on health grounds due to his terminal cancer.
Senators from New York and New Jersey want to meet Mr Cameron over the release of al-Megrahi.
BP has admitted lobbying the UK government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya, but denied specifically discussing the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
A prisoner transfer request was made by Libya in May 2009, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred was ratified.
However, Mr MacAskill stressed that when he released al-Megrahi in August last year it was not under that deal.
"We can understand the questions that are being asked in the United States regarding oil and what may or may not have been done by the British government," he said.
"These relate to the prisoner transfer agreement, to the application made by Mr al-Megrahi.
"I refused that because I too had concerns as to what may or may not have been done and whether it had been made an assurance to families that he would serve his sentence here."
He said he could understand the questions being raised by the US Secretary of State and senators.
"But these are questions that have to be answered by the British government," he said.
"It was the British government that perhaps did a deal in the desert but that will be for them to state and for the senators to discover."
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has said questions being asked about the Lockerbie bomber are matters for the UK government.
Prime Minister David Cameron is to meet US senators to discuss allegations BP lobbied for his release.
Mr MacAskill said he refused a bid to move Abelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Instead he released him on health grounds due to his terminal cancer.
Senators from New York and New Jersey want to meet Mr Cameron over the release of al-Megrahi.
BP has admitted lobbying the UK government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya, but denied specifically discussing the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
A prisoner transfer request was made by Libya in May 2009, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred was ratified.
However, Mr MacAskill stressed that when he released al-Megrahi in August last year it was not under that deal.
"We can understand the questions that are being asked in the United States regarding oil and what may or may not have been done by the British government," he said.
"These relate to the prisoner transfer agreement, to the application made by Mr al-Megrahi.
"I refused that because I too had concerns as to what may or may not have been done and whether it had been made an assurance to families that he would serve his sentence here."
He said he could understand the questions being raised by the US Secretary of State and senators.
"But these are questions that have to be answered by the British government," he said.
"It was the British government that perhaps did a deal in the desert but that will be for them to state and for the senators to discover."
Barack Obama please note: you're wrong about David Cameron and the Lockerbie Bomber
[This is the heading over a post by James Kirkup on his blog on the Telegraph website. It reads:]
Some American political people appear to be unhappy about the Lockerbie bomber’s continuing failure to die.
Now, I accept that it’s rather ill-mannered of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to cling to life having implicitly promised to go the way of all flesh within three months of his return to Libya.
But I’m more concerned that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and a diverse cast of senators appear intent on holding David Cameron accountable for both Megrahi’s freedom and his longevity.
The President will apparently raise the issue with the PM in Washington today. And Mrs Clinton has asked the UK government to “review” the circumstances of Megrahi’s release last year. The lady and gentlemen from the Senate, meanwhile, are intent on exploring what role BP’s relationship with Tony Blair had in the decision to release the bomber.
Whether for reasons of ignorance or (much more likely) political convenience, the president, his secretary of state and the senators are perpetuating a misunderstanding: the idea that Mr Cameron (or his predecessor) has any responsibility for Megrahi’s release. He doesn’t.
What’s really odd is that this misunderstanding is taking place in country that has a federal system. How can US politicians steeped in the concept of states’ rights and the limits to federal authority not grasp the concept of Scottish devolution?
Devolution means power over – and legal responsibility for – certain issues rests in Edinburgh with the administration elected by the people of Scotland. And not, repeat not, with the Government in London. One of those issues was the release of Megrahi. That’s because Scotland has its own legal system, quite distinct from that of England, and over which ministers in London have precisely no influence.
Since this point doesn’t seem to be properly appreciated in Washington, let me repeat it: the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was made by ministers in Scotland before the current UK government came to power.
So perhaps our American friends would do well to consider this: holding David Cameron responsible for the actions of Scottish Nationalist Party ministers in 2009 is like holding Barack Obama responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court of Texas and its Republican governor in 2007.
In other words, you’ve got the wrong man. Try directing your attentions to Edinburgh. You can start by calling +44 131 556 8400 and ask for Alex.
Some American political people appear to be unhappy about the Lockerbie bomber’s continuing failure to die.
Now, I accept that it’s rather ill-mannered of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to cling to life having implicitly promised to go the way of all flesh within three months of his return to Libya.
But I’m more concerned that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and a diverse cast of senators appear intent on holding David Cameron accountable for both Megrahi’s freedom and his longevity.
The President will apparently raise the issue with the PM in Washington today. And Mrs Clinton has asked the UK government to “review” the circumstances of Megrahi’s release last year. The lady and gentlemen from the Senate, meanwhile, are intent on exploring what role BP’s relationship with Tony Blair had in the decision to release the bomber.
Whether for reasons of ignorance or (much more likely) political convenience, the president, his secretary of state and the senators are perpetuating a misunderstanding: the idea that Mr Cameron (or his predecessor) has any responsibility for Megrahi’s release. He doesn’t.
What’s really odd is that this misunderstanding is taking place in country that has a federal system. How can US politicians steeped in the concept of states’ rights and the limits to federal authority not grasp the concept of Scottish devolution?
Devolution means power over – and legal responsibility for – certain issues rests in Edinburgh with the administration elected by the people of Scotland. And not, repeat not, with the Government in London. One of those issues was the release of Megrahi. That’s because Scotland has its own legal system, quite distinct from that of England, and over which ministers in London have precisely no influence.
Since this point doesn’t seem to be properly appreciated in Washington, let me repeat it: the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was made by ministers in Scotland before the current UK government came to power.
So perhaps our American friends would do well to consider this: holding David Cameron responsible for the actions of Scottish Nationalist Party ministers in 2009 is like holding Barack Obama responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court of Texas and its Republican governor in 2007.
In other words, you’ve got the wrong man. Try directing your attentions to Edinburgh. You can start by calling +44 131 556 8400 and ask for Alex.
Miliband: Lockerbie bomber release was clearly wrong
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Labour leadership contender David Miliband has condemned the decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as clearly wrong.
His comments in an exclusive interview in The Herald today represent a dramatic change in his previous position on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release on medical grounds.
They were made as criticism of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill intensified on both sides of the Atlantic.
The SNP last night hit back at the shadow foreign secretary’s comments. A source said: “This ludicrous about-turn by Miliband will damage his credibility and do him absolutely no good, either in his party or anywhere else.” (...)
When Labour was in government Miliband avoided commenting on the rights or wrongs of MacAskill’s ruling, but he now suggests the medical evidence, which said Megrahi had only three months to live, was flawed.
Asked if it was a mistake to release Megrahi, Miliband told The Herald: “It was clearly wrong because it was done on the basis he had less than three months to live and it’s now 11 months on.”
The frontrunner to succeed Gordon Brown as Labour leader added: “The decision was made in accordance with our constitution and so it was a decision for the Scottish minister to make.
“Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds and, as I understand it, that depends on him having less than three months to live, so something has gone badly wrong.”
Miliband acknowledges MacAskill made his decision in good faith but stresses he understands the anger felt by families of the American victims. This is in sharp contrast to his earlier reaction to the Libyan’s release in August last year.
In a Commons statement in October, Miliband pointed out that British interests “would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than Libya”. (...)
Last night, a Scottish Government source said: “It was David Miliband’s own government that did the deal in the desert and Miliband was Foreign Secretary when the UK signed the PTA with Libya with the clear intention of sending Megrahi back to Libya.
“It was tawdry and Kenny MacAskill rightly rejected the PTA application. This ludicrous about-turn by Miliband will damage his credibility.”
[For an interesting comment on the politics of Miliband's change of heart, see this article on The First Post website.
The letters page of today's edition of The Herald contains two interesting contributions. The first, from Colin Chilton reads:
"So the Americans and the UK Conservative Party want a full public inquiry into the release of Abdelbaset Mohmed Al Megrahi ...
"After almost 22 years is it not time we had a full public inquiry into the events of that terrible night when PanAm flight 103 crashed near Lockerbie? All we had in the aftermath was a Fatal Accident Inquiry which is obviously more limited in its scope than a full inquiry. Surely if the Westminster and US Governments are so keen to see justice is done that they will release all information pertaining to this matter and not just the evidence that suits them.
"So many unanswered questions remain from the Lockerbie disaster, from the Americans who were at the scene within two hours poring through the debris, to the sudden switch of investigation from Syria to Libya which happened rather conveniently when Libya was the only country on Iraq’s side in 1991 during the Gulf War of that year where the Americans needed Syrian support. If the Americans and UK Conservatives are so keen to see justice is done, let’s see them open the files after all what do they have to hide?"
The second, from Tom Minogue, echoes his earlier letter in The Scotsman. The three letters in that newspaper -- and the readers' comments -- are also of interest.]
Labour leadership contender David Miliband has condemned the decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as clearly wrong.
His comments in an exclusive interview in The Herald today represent a dramatic change in his previous position on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release on medical grounds.
They were made as criticism of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill intensified on both sides of the Atlantic.
The SNP last night hit back at the shadow foreign secretary’s comments. A source said: “This ludicrous about-turn by Miliband will damage his credibility and do him absolutely no good, either in his party or anywhere else.” (...)
When Labour was in government Miliband avoided commenting on the rights or wrongs of MacAskill’s ruling, but he now suggests the medical evidence, which said Megrahi had only three months to live, was flawed.
Asked if it was a mistake to release Megrahi, Miliband told The Herald: “It was clearly wrong because it was done on the basis he had less than three months to live and it’s now 11 months on.”
The frontrunner to succeed Gordon Brown as Labour leader added: “The decision was made in accordance with our constitution and so it was a decision for the Scottish minister to make.
“Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds and, as I understand it, that depends on him having less than three months to live, so something has gone badly wrong.”
Miliband acknowledges MacAskill made his decision in good faith but stresses he understands the anger felt by families of the American victims. This is in sharp contrast to his earlier reaction to the Libyan’s release in August last year.
In a Commons statement in October, Miliband pointed out that British interests “would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than Libya”. (...)
Last night, a Scottish Government source said: “It was David Miliband’s own government that did the deal in the desert and Miliband was Foreign Secretary when the UK signed the PTA with Libya with the clear intention of sending Megrahi back to Libya.
“It was tawdry and Kenny MacAskill rightly rejected the PTA application. This ludicrous about-turn by Miliband will damage his credibility.”
[For an interesting comment on the politics of Miliband's change of heart, see this article on The First Post website.
The letters page of today's edition of The Herald contains two interesting contributions. The first, from Colin Chilton reads:
"So the Americans and the UK Conservative Party want a full public inquiry into the release of Abdelbaset Mohmed Al Megrahi ...
"After almost 22 years is it not time we had a full public inquiry into the events of that terrible night when PanAm flight 103 crashed near Lockerbie? All we had in the aftermath was a Fatal Accident Inquiry which is obviously more limited in its scope than a full inquiry. Surely if the Westminster and US Governments are so keen to see justice is done that they will release all information pertaining to this matter and not just the evidence that suits them.
"So many unanswered questions remain from the Lockerbie disaster, from the Americans who were at the scene within two hours poring through the debris, to the sudden switch of investigation from Syria to Libya which happened rather conveniently when Libya was the only country on Iraq’s side in 1991 during the Gulf War of that year where the Americans needed Syrian support. If the Americans and UK Conservatives are so keen to see justice is done, let’s see them open the files after all what do they have to hide?"
The second, from Tom Minogue, echoes his earlier letter in The Scotsman. The three letters in that newspaper -- and the readers' comments -- are also of interest.]
British PM agrees to see US senators on Lockerbie
[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report. It reads in part:]
British Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed to meet during his visit to Washington with four US senators angry over the Lockerbie bomber's release, his spokesman said Tuesday.
The British embassy in the US capital had originally said Cameron would not have time to meet the lawmakers as he had a full schedule, and would instead ask British Ambassador Nigel Sheinwald to see them.
But his spokesman later said the prime minister, on his first visit to Washington since taking office in May, had changed his plans and would invite the senators for a discussion later Tuesday at the British ambassador's residence.
"The prime minister recognises the strength of feeling and knows how important it is to reassure the families of the victims," said the spokesman.
"We are happy to see them face to face and find time in the diary."
Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey wrote a letter to Cameron Monday asking to meet with him to discuss the Lockerbie case. (...)
Menendez earlier described Cameron's initial refusal to meet with him and his fellow senators as "disappointing", adding that "it is critical for us to get the full story from the British government."
[Well, it certainly didn't take long for this British poodle to see the wisdom of complying with his US master's wishes.
The BBC News report on the Prime Minister's speedy volte face can be read here.]
British Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed to meet during his visit to Washington with four US senators angry over the Lockerbie bomber's release, his spokesman said Tuesday.
The British embassy in the US capital had originally said Cameron would not have time to meet the lawmakers as he had a full schedule, and would instead ask British Ambassador Nigel Sheinwald to see them.
But his spokesman later said the prime minister, on his first visit to Washington since taking office in May, had changed his plans and would invite the senators for a discussion later Tuesday at the British ambassador's residence.
"The prime minister recognises the strength of feeling and knows how important it is to reassure the families of the victims," said the spokesman.
"We are happy to see them face to face and find time in the diary."
Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey wrote a letter to Cameron Monday asking to meet with him to discuss the Lockerbie case. (...)
Menendez earlier described Cameron's initial refusal to meet with him and his fellow senators as "disappointing", adding that "it is critical for us to get the full story from the British government."
[Well, it certainly didn't take long for this British poodle to see the wisdom of complying with his US master's wishes.
The BBC News report on the Prime Minister's speedy volte face can be read here.]
Monday, 19 July 2010
Clinton urges review of decision to release Libyan
[This is the headline over a report by the Associated Press news agency. It reads in part:]
The Obama administration has asked the Scottish and British governments to review the decision last summer to release the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie airliner bombing.
In letters to US lawmakers, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the US was encouraging the Scottish and British authorities to review the underlying facts and circumstances leading to the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. (...)
Clinton's spokesman, PJ Crowley, told reporters Monday that such a review would provide reassurance about the credibility of the decision to free the Libyan on humanitarian grounds, but he doubted it would reverse the decision.
"Everybody has an interest in making sure that this was a decision that was made freely, based on the best information available and did not represent any inappropriate or skewed actions," Crowley said. (...)
[Mrs Clinton] said [in the letters to the four senators] US officials will continue to argue that al-Megrahi should not be a free man.
"To that end, we are encouraging the Scottish and British authorities to review again the underlying facts and circumstances leading to the release of al-Megrahi and to consider any new information that has come to light since his release," she wrote.
As to a possible BP link, Clinton wrote that she was aware of media reports on the subject, but said that the decision on whether to release al-Megrahi fell exclusively to the Scottish government under local law. Still, Clinton said she opposed the decision, "whatever the rationale."
[The full text of Secretary Clinton's letter can be read here.]
The Obama administration has asked the Scottish and British governments to review the decision last summer to release the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie airliner bombing.
In letters to US lawmakers, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the US was encouraging the Scottish and British authorities to review the underlying facts and circumstances leading to the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. (...)
Clinton's spokesman, PJ Crowley, told reporters Monday that such a review would provide reassurance about the credibility of the decision to free the Libyan on humanitarian grounds, but he doubted it would reverse the decision.
"Everybody has an interest in making sure that this was a decision that was made freely, based on the best information available and did not represent any inappropriate or skewed actions," Crowley said. (...)
[Mrs Clinton] said [in the letters to the four senators] US officials will continue to argue that al-Megrahi should not be a free man.
"To that end, we are encouraging the Scottish and British authorities to review again the underlying facts and circumstances leading to the release of al-Megrahi and to consider any new information that has come to light since his release," she wrote.
As to a possible BP link, Clinton wrote that she was aware of media reports on the subject, but said that the decision on whether to release al-Megrahi fell exclusively to the Scottish government under local law. Still, Clinton said she opposed the decision, "whatever the rationale."
[The full text of Secretary Clinton's letter can be read here.]
Dalyell attacks Scottish Crown Office over Megrahi case
A former Labour MP has accused the Scottish Crown Office of behaving "deceitfully and disgracefully" over its handling of the Lockerbie bombing case.
Veteran Labour figure Tam Dalyell made the comments after a Tory MP called for a public inquiry into the release of the only man convicted of the atrocity Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Mr Megrahi was finally released last year on compassionate grounds by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Many, including a number of families of those killed, believe that Mr Megrahi was a scapegoat and should never have been convicted of the bombing. Others, including the US government, condemned Mr MacAskill's decision.
Mr Dalyell, an ex-Father of the Commons who repeatedly raised the issue of Lockerbie, said: "My political opponents Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill were quite right to release Mr Megrahi.
"They know perfectly well that he is an innocent man in relation to Lockerbie. It is I suppose understandable that they cannot as SNP leaders say so, since to do so would reflect appallingly on the Crown Office in Edinburgh which has behaved deceitfully and disgracefully over 20 years and on the quality of Scottish justice."
He continued: "If in their heart of hearts they had thought Mr Megrahi guilty they would in my opinion certainly not have released him."
Tory backbencher Daniel Kawczynski, who is chairman of the Westminster all-party group on Libya, called for a public inquiry into the decision yesterday and said Mr MacAskill should apologise for the "huge error" in releasing Mr Megrahi almost a year ago.
Mr MacAskill has already said he would be prepared to assist any inquiry held into circumstances surrounding Mr Megrahi's release.
[From an article just published on the website of the Morning Star.]
Veteran Labour figure Tam Dalyell made the comments after a Tory MP called for a public inquiry into the release of the only man convicted of the atrocity Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Mr Megrahi was finally released last year on compassionate grounds by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Many, including a number of families of those killed, believe that Mr Megrahi was a scapegoat and should never have been convicted of the bombing. Others, including the US government, condemned Mr MacAskill's decision.
Mr Dalyell, an ex-Father of the Commons who repeatedly raised the issue of Lockerbie, said: "My political opponents Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill were quite right to release Mr Megrahi.
"They know perfectly well that he is an innocent man in relation to Lockerbie. It is I suppose understandable that they cannot as SNP leaders say so, since to do so would reflect appallingly on the Crown Office in Edinburgh which has behaved deceitfully and disgracefully over 20 years and on the quality of Scottish justice."
He continued: "If in their heart of hearts they had thought Mr Megrahi guilty they would in my opinion certainly not have released him."
Tory backbencher Daniel Kawczynski, who is chairman of the Westminster all-party group on Libya, called for a public inquiry into the decision yesterday and said Mr MacAskill should apologise for the "huge error" in releasing Mr Megrahi almost a year ago.
Mr MacAskill has already said he would be prepared to assist any inquiry held into circumstances surrounding Mr Megrahi's release.
[From an article just published on the website of the Morning Star.]
Megrahi inquiry 'is kicking BP while it's down'
The BP spill and a senate inquiry in the release of the Lockerbie could overshadow David Cameron's visit to the US. But former UK Libyan ambassador Oliver Miles tells Channel 4 News the al-Megrahi inquiry is a case of kicking BP while it is down. (...)
You told Channel 4 News last year that you thought there had been a deal on al-Megrahi's release. How would it have worked?
The problem is this: why did Megrahi and Libya decide to abandon the appeal. It was probably Libya rather than Megrahi, because Megrahi was very ill and had given the Libyans full powers to act on his behalf.
The obvious reason for abandoning it was that it was a precondition under the prisoner transfer agreement – but the PTA wasn't actually used. And under Scottish humanitarian arrangements, it wasn't a precondition. It means we're left with an unanswered question as to why he abandoned it.
So there's a mystery there. The only half-solution I can think of is that someone convinced the Libyans or Megrahi that this was the only way he’d get a ticket home.
And has UK-Libya trade improved since al-Megrahi's release?
UK trade has improved. That's a fact if you believe the statistics. But whether one can link it to Megrahi or any other political factor, I would doubt.
The position I probably was taking last year and my feeling now is that if this had gone wrong, it would have had a serious negative impact on relations, including trade.
Put it this way. I was in Libya in May leading a delegation of British business people, and Megrahi wasn't mentioned - and I would have been amazed if he had been.
What will the US Senate inquiry reveal?
It seems to be there is no basis for an inquiry at all. Why are they raising this? The answer, to be blunt, is because of BP? Everybody knows that BP s a baddie, and when they're nearly down, this is the time to kick them.
Libya knows the only way it can achieve a boost in oil production is by bringing in the world's biggest oil companies – that’s the country has signed a deal with BP, with Shell and with Exxon Mobil as well.
[From a report on the Channel 4 News website.]
You told Channel 4 News last year that you thought there had been a deal on al-Megrahi's release. How would it have worked?
The problem is this: why did Megrahi and Libya decide to abandon the appeal. It was probably Libya rather than Megrahi, because Megrahi was very ill and had given the Libyans full powers to act on his behalf.
The obvious reason for abandoning it was that it was a precondition under the prisoner transfer agreement – but the PTA wasn't actually used. And under Scottish humanitarian arrangements, it wasn't a precondition. It means we're left with an unanswered question as to why he abandoned it.
So there's a mystery there. The only half-solution I can think of is that someone convinced the Libyans or Megrahi that this was the only way he’d get a ticket home.
And has UK-Libya trade improved since al-Megrahi's release?
UK trade has improved. That's a fact if you believe the statistics. But whether one can link it to Megrahi or any other political factor, I would doubt.
The position I probably was taking last year and my feeling now is that if this had gone wrong, it would have had a serious negative impact on relations, including trade.
Put it this way. I was in Libya in May leading a delegation of British business people, and Megrahi wasn't mentioned - and I would have been amazed if he had been.
What will the US Senate inquiry reveal?
It seems to be there is no basis for an inquiry at all. Why are they raising this? The answer, to be blunt, is because of BP? Everybody knows that BP s a baddie, and when they're nearly down, this is the time to kick them.
Libya knows the only way it can achieve a boost in oil production is by bringing in the world's biggest oil companies – that’s the country has signed a deal with BP, with Shell and with Exxon Mobil as well.
[From a report on the Channel 4 News website.]
Cameron criticises al-Megrahi release before US visit
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
David Cameron has attacked the release of the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, ahead of his first official visit to the US as PM.
Mr Cameron described the Scottish government decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds last year as "completely wrong".
The US Congress is investigating the background to the decision amid claims of lobbying by oil firm BP over it. (...)
Mr Cameron is expected to discuss ... the Lockerbie case during his first visit to the White House as prime minister on Tuesday. (...)
Asked about the decision in August to free Libyan al-Megrahi after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given three months to live, Mr Cameron stressed it had been a decision for the Scottish government alone.
However, he said he "deeply regrets" the pain the decision caused to the relatives of the 270 mainly US citizens, killed in the 1988 bombing.
"All I know is, as leader of the opposition, I could not have been more clear that I thought the decision to release al-Megrahi was completely and utterly wrong," he told BBC Breakfast.
Asked whether BP - which has lucrative oil contracts in Libya - had lobbied for al-Megrahi's release, he said: "I have no idea what BP did. I am not responsible for BP."
Foreign Secretary William Hague has written to his US counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stating that there was no evidence of BP involvement in the decision.
BP has acknowledged that it warned the previous Labour government of a possible "negative impact on UK commercial interests" of slow progress being made agreeing a separate prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.
But it has insisted that it had no discussions with either the UK or Scottish government over the issue.
On Sunday, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski called for a full public inquiry into the decision to release al-Megrahi.
[The four senators who triggered this furore have now written to David Cameron asking for a meeting while he is in the United States. But it appears from a report on the BBC News website that the request has been refused:]
"UK Prime Minister David Cameron will not meet four US senators to discuss allegations BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
"But the British embassy said Mr Cameron had a full schedule on his US trip and the senators could meet the ambassador."
David Cameron has attacked the release of the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, ahead of his first official visit to the US as PM.
Mr Cameron described the Scottish government decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds last year as "completely wrong".
The US Congress is investigating the background to the decision amid claims of lobbying by oil firm BP over it. (...)
Mr Cameron is expected to discuss ... the Lockerbie case during his first visit to the White House as prime minister on Tuesday. (...)
Asked about the decision in August to free Libyan al-Megrahi after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given three months to live, Mr Cameron stressed it had been a decision for the Scottish government alone.
However, he said he "deeply regrets" the pain the decision caused to the relatives of the 270 mainly US citizens, killed in the 1988 bombing.
"All I know is, as leader of the opposition, I could not have been more clear that I thought the decision to release al-Megrahi was completely and utterly wrong," he told BBC Breakfast.
Asked whether BP - which has lucrative oil contracts in Libya - had lobbied for al-Megrahi's release, he said: "I have no idea what BP did. I am not responsible for BP."
Foreign Secretary William Hague has written to his US counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stating that there was no evidence of BP involvement in the decision.
BP has acknowledged that it warned the previous Labour government of a possible "negative impact on UK commercial interests" of slow progress being made agreeing a separate prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.
But it has insisted that it had no discussions with either the UK or Scottish government over the issue.
On Sunday, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski called for a full public inquiry into the decision to release al-Megrahi.
[The four senators who triggered this furore have now written to David Cameron asking for a meeting while he is in the United States. But it appears from a report on the BBC News website that the request has been refused:]
"UK Prime Minister David Cameron will not meet four US senators to discuss allegations BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
"But the British embassy said Mr Cameron had a full schedule on his US trip and the senators could meet the ambassador."
Salmond: Ask Blair about Megrahi
Alex Salmond told US senators they should direct questions about a prisoner transfer agreement for the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing at former prime minister Tony Blair.
The First Minister has also accused a Tory MP of calling for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip. His comments followed a weekend of renewed questions in the US and London about the decision to return Megrahi to Libya. Salmond said a Senate hearing should call the former prime minister to give evidence about the “deal in the desert” which paved the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s oil reserves.
Almost a year after Megrahi, who is suffering from prostate cancer, was freed on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, a group of Democratic senators is demanding an inquiry into claims the oil giant lobbied for his release to smooth a deal. An influential Senate committee is also to examine the case.
A spokesman for Salmond said: “If the US Senate wants to get the truth about the deal in the desert by the UK and Libyan governments in 2007, they should call Tony Blair to give evidence. Blair was its architect – he would be the one who knows about an oil deal.”
Salmond’s spokesman dismissed a call for a UK Government inquiry by Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, chairman of Westminster’s all-party group on Libya. He has written to David Cameron asking how the Scottish Government can be held to account and asking for more information on UK Government involvement.
Salmond’s spokesman said: “As far as Daniel Kawczynski is concerned, he wrote to the Justice Secretary in August last year saying that al-Megrahi should be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip, which is as extraordinary as it is inappropriate in relation to determining applications for prisoner transfer or compassionate release.”
The issue threatens to overshadow David Cameron’s first visit to Washington as Prime Minister tomorrow.
In a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “There is no evidence that corroborates in any way the allegations of BP involvement in the Scottish Executive’s decision to release Megrahi.”
But Hague also said that the release was “a mistake”.
MacAskill said he would “support a wider UK public inquiry or United Nations investigation capable of examining all of the issues related to the Lockerbie atrocity, which go well beyond Scotland’s jurisdiction”.
[From an article in today's edition of The Herald by Political Editor Brian Currie.]
The First Minister has also accused a Tory MP of calling for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip. His comments followed a weekend of renewed questions in the US and London about the decision to return Megrahi to Libya. Salmond said a Senate hearing should call the former prime minister to give evidence about the “deal in the desert” which paved the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s oil reserves.
Almost a year after Megrahi, who is suffering from prostate cancer, was freed on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, a group of Democratic senators is demanding an inquiry into claims the oil giant lobbied for his release to smooth a deal. An influential Senate committee is also to examine the case.
A spokesman for Salmond said: “If the US Senate wants to get the truth about the deal in the desert by the UK and Libyan governments in 2007, they should call Tony Blair to give evidence. Blair was its architect – he would be the one who knows about an oil deal.”
Salmond’s spokesman dismissed a call for a UK Government inquiry by Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, chairman of Westminster’s all-party group on Libya. He has written to David Cameron asking how the Scottish Government can be held to account and asking for more information on UK Government involvement.
Salmond’s spokesman said: “As far as Daniel Kawczynski is concerned, he wrote to the Justice Secretary in August last year saying that al-Megrahi should be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip, which is as extraordinary as it is inappropriate in relation to determining applications for prisoner transfer or compassionate release.”
The issue threatens to overshadow David Cameron’s first visit to Washington as Prime Minister tomorrow.
In a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “There is no evidence that corroborates in any way the allegations of BP involvement in the Scottish Executive’s decision to release Megrahi.”
But Hague also said that the release was “a mistake”.
MacAskill said he would “support a wider UK public inquiry or United Nations investigation capable of examining all of the issues related to the Lockerbie atrocity, which go well beyond Scotland’s jurisdiction”.
[From an article in today's edition of The Herald by Political Editor Brian Currie.]
Government must block US interference
[This is the heading over a letter by Tom Minogue published in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Many of the huge number of online commentators on Eddie Barnes' article (17 July) were incensed by the possibility that Scotland's justice minister might be summoned to Washington to explain his decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
I was dismayed, but not surprised at the stance taken by the US as it is in keeping with the history of the Lockerbie trial.
Back in 2001 the United Nations-appointed independent observer to the trial at the Scots court in [the Netherlands], Professor Hans Koechler, voiced his serious concerns that senior US Justice Department officials were in the body of the court and appeared to be directing the Crown Office prosecution staff. (...)
Scotland has a history of subservient over-eagerness to do our American cousin's bidding - Alex Salmond's fawning over Donald Trump, for example - and if the Yanks were allowed to run the show at the Lockerbie trial, then it shouldn't surprise anyone if they attempt to interfere further in that saga by summoning our justice minister as if they were ordering a taxi.
If our legal system and officials have been tarnished by Lockerbie, then there is one redeeming aspect of the sorry affair and that is the fact that at long last one Scots lawyer, MSP Christine Grahame, has had the courage to point out that the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) found that there was serious doubt as to the safety of Megrahi's conviction - something that Salmond, McAskill, and Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini have studiously avoided mentioning.
Mrs Grahame is also calling for the US to take part in a full inquiry into all of the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie trial. Good for her. She typifies the best qualities of our nation: independent and brave; telling it like it is, without fear of our powerful neighbour across the pond, or of her bosses at Holyrood.
I fear that her doubts about Megrahi's trial and conviction, like those of the UN observer and the SCCRC, will not be taken seriously by the powers that be.
[The four readers' letters on the subject published in today's edition of The Herald are also worth reading.]
Many of the huge number of online commentators on Eddie Barnes' article (17 July) were incensed by the possibility that Scotland's justice minister might be summoned to Washington to explain his decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
I was dismayed, but not surprised at the stance taken by the US as it is in keeping with the history of the Lockerbie trial.
Back in 2001 the United Nations-appointed independent observer to the trial at the Scots court in [the Netherlands], Professor Hans Koechler, voiced his serious concerns that senior US Justice Department officials were in the body of the court and appeared to be directing the Crown Office prosecution staff. (...)
Scotland has a history of subservient over-eagerness to do our American cousin's bidding - Alex Salmond's fawning over Donald Trump, for example - and if the Yanks were allowed to run the show at the Lockerbie trial, then it shouldn't surprise anyone if they attempt to interfere further in that saga by summoning our justice minister as if they were ordering a taxi.
If our legal system and officials have been tarnished by Lockerbie, then there is one redeeming aspect of the sorry affair and that is the fact that at long last one Scots lawyer, MSP Christine Grahame, has had the courage to point out that the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) found that there was serious doubt as to the safety of Megrahi's conviction - something that Salmond, McAskill, and Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini have studiously avoided mentioning.
Mrs Grahame is also calling for the US to take part in a full inquiry into all of the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie trial. Good for her. She typifies the best qualities of our nation: independent and brave; telling it like it is, without fear of our powerful neighbour across the pond, or of her bosses at Holyrood.
I fear that her doubts about Megrahi's trial and conviction, like those of the UN observer and the SCCRC, will not be taken seriously by the powers that be.
[The four readers' letters on the subject published in today's edition of The Herald are also worth reading.]
Sunday, 18 July 2010
Tory MP calls on PM to hold inquiry into Megrahi release
A Tory MP has made a fresh call for a full public inquiry into the release of the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The chairman of Westminster's all-party group on Libya, Daniel Kawczynski, has written to the prime minister.
He urged David Cameron to hold Scottish ministers to account for their decision to allow Abdelbaset al-Megrahi home to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The Scottish government said an inquiry had already been held. (...)
The US Senate foreign relations committee said it would ask BP officials to testify after the company admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya.
The Scottish government denied having any contact with BP before its decision.
A spokesman for Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish government had opposed the PTA between the UK and Libya, which was brokered by former prime minister Tony Blair.
The spokesman said Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds.
"If the US Senate wants to get the truth about the 'deal in the desert' by the UK and Libyan governments in 2007, they should call Tony Blair to give evidence," the spokesman said.
"Blair was its architect - he would be the one who knows about an oil deal.
"Kenny MacAskill rejected Libya's prisoner transfer application for al-Megrahi and he based his decisions on both the PTA and the compassionate release application on strict justice criteria."
The spokesman added: "We have of course had an inquiry in the Scottish Parliament, and also by the Westminster Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which was very critical of the UK government for keeping Scottish ministers in the dark about Tony Blair's deal in the desert on a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya."
[From a report on the BBC News website.
I wonder precisely what powers Mr Kawczynski believes the Prime Minister (or, indeed, the UK Government) has to "hold Scottish ministers to account" in respect of a function (deciding on the compassionate release of a prisoner in a Scottish jail) that the law of the land confers upon the Scottish government. Or is this just a case of a British MP wanting to demonstrate that he can be just as daft and uninformed and publicity-hungry as a US senator?]
The chairman of Westminster's all-party group on Libya, Daniel Kawczynski, has written to the prime minister.
He urged David Cameron to hold Scottish ministers to account for their decision to allow Abdelbaset al-Megrahi home to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The Scottish government said an inquiry had already been held. (...)
The US Senate foreign relations committee said it would ask BP officials to testify after the company admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya.
The Scottish government denied having any contact with BP before its decision.
A spokesman for Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish government had opposed the PTA between the UK and Libya, which was brokered by former prime minister Tony Blair.
The spokesman said Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds.
"If the US Senate wants to get the truth about the 'deal in the desert' by the UK and Libyan governments in 2007, they should call Tony Blair to give evidence," the spokesman said.
"Blair was its architect - he would be the one who knows about an oil deal.
"Kenny MacAskill rejected Libya's prisoner transfer application for al-Megrahi and he based his decisions on both the PTA and the compassionate release application on strict justice criteria."
The spokesman added: "We have of course had an inquiry in the Scottish Parliament, and also by the Westminster Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which was very critical of the UK government for keeping Scottish ministers in the dark about Tony Blair's deal in the desert on a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya."
[From a report on the BBC News website.
I wonder precisely what powers Mr Kawczynski believes the Prime Minister (or, indeed, the UK Government) has to "hold Scottish ministers to account" in respect of a function (deciding on the compassionate release of a prisoner in a Scottish jail) that the law of the land confers upon the Scottish government. Or is this just a case of a British MP wanting to demonstrate that he can be just as daft and uninformed and publicity-hungry as a US senator?]
Did BP play a part in the release of the Lockerbie bomber?
[This is the headline over an article by Eddie Barnes in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
Bob Monetti laughs sarcastically. "This is the story that never goes away, huh?" Just before Christmas in 1988, Monetti was preparing to welcome his son Richard back home. (...) But Richard never made it home.
Thirty-eight minutes after taking off from Heathrow Airport, he was murdered when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up in the skies above Lockerbie.
Bob Monetti and the rest of the family drew some solace after his death from the links they formed here. "The only people who were heroes in this were the Scottish people. The people of Lockerbie were wonderful," he says. Then, just under year ago, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - the man he is convinced killed his son - was released by Scottish ministers. His voice takes on a different tone. He sounds resigned to cynicism. "The Scots caved into the English so that these BP oil contracts could go ahead," he says. "BP does what BP does. They will make money any way they can. The thing that really has hurt is the Scottish reputation. They (the Scottish Government] have been fighting for independence and the first thing they do is cave in." (...)
The outrage felt in America last August when Al Megrahi was freed by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, on compassionate grounds has re-emerged with a vengeance. Scottish and UK ministers are once again facing accusations of having let him go for all the wrong reasons. This week, David Cameron heads to Washington for his first talks in the White House with Barack Obama, with Lockerbie one of the issues being raised. The outcry over the case suggests that the relationship between the UK and the US is no longer quite so special. (...)
The latest burst of senatorial anger over Lockerbie does not have its roots in Scotland but in the oil-filled waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Last week, BP finally plugged the leak in its broken well off the coast of Louisiana, a full 87 days after it first exploded. (...)
Halfway around the world, it emerged that Libya had given approval for BP to start a well in the Gulf of Sirt off the African coast. With awful timing, the oil firm's 2007 deal with Libya to begin exploiting the rich reserves held by the country, was finally being realised.
This was the deal, the Americans remembered, that had been linked to an agreement between the UK and Libyan government to allow prisoners including Al Megrahi to be transferred from one country to the other. BP's oil well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico was not the only thing about to blow. Their sense of injustice already high as a result of the BP oil spill, senators Robert Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand and Frank Lautenberg decided to open a new front. "The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profit?" (...)
Of more interest to the senators are the stories which have emerged in the UK following Al Megrahi's release about the oil firm's alleged involvement. The company reached its agreement with Libya in late 2007, in the wake of Tony Blair's historic meeting with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi - the so-called "deal in the desert". It was here that the pair first discussed, among other things, a prisoner transfer agreement. Quite what the pair actually agreed upon is still a matter of conjecture. For the Libyans, however, the terms of the deal were clear - Al Megrahi was involved. Speaking on Libyan TV last year, Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadaffi told Al Megrahi: "In all the trade, oil and gas deals which I have supervised, you were there on the table. When British interests came to Libya, I used to put you on the table."
BP now makes no bones that it raised the question of the prisoner transfer agreement which Libya wanted signed before the oil exploration deal was agreed. Sir Mark Allan, a former MI5 spy and a consultant for BP, lobbied former Justice Secretary Jack Straw to get the matter dealt with. A spokesman for BP said last week the firm was "concerned about the slow progress that was being made" to resolve the deal. Sir Mark contacted Straw to try to push things along. As it emerged last year, Straw was persuaded; agreeing to include Al Megrahi as part of the PTA deal. Hence the conspiracy has grown legs.
But this view of the saga has several weak points. First, as Straw himself pointed out, he never had the power to actually release Al Megrahi in the first place. So, while intelligence sources insist that Al Megrahi almost certainly came up in the Libya-UK talks, talk of a deal to release him remains fanciful, relying as it does on the improbable scenario of the UK Labour government strong-arming the SNP-led Scottish Government into doing what it wanted.
The UK ambassador to the USA, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, took the unusual step of writing to Kerry on the Senate Committee last week, urging him to effectively tone it down. "The British Government worked with British business to promote legitimate commercial interests with Libya," he wrote. "But there was no link between those legitimate commercial activities and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi."
As for that decision, no-one yet has come up with any explanation beyond the obvious one stated at the time. Despite a huge amount of correspondence being published since, there is no evidence that Kenny MacAskill was influenced by any commercial interests. He actually refused to release Al Megrahi under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement negotiated by the British, with Alex Salmond having already made plain his opposition to it. Instead, with Al Megrahi's plea for clemency ringing in his ears, the Justice Secretary decided to show him compassion. Within St Andrew's House MacAskill's aides understand that American relatives disagree with the decision to release Al Megrahi for compassionate reasons - particularly as he remains alive. But there is frustration they are being dragged into a conspiracy in which they played no part. One senior source says: "Where were these senators in 2007 when Blair did his deal in the desert and what did they think the PTA was all about? Instead, they gave him standing ovations in the Capitol." (...)
Many come from Frank Duggan, another relative, who represents the Victims of Flight 103 group. "So the Brits are now saying it was a mistake to release Megrahi, but we didn't do it the Scots did, and that BP did lobby us but didn't mention Megrahi by name," he wrote on Friday. "Meanwhile, Gaddafi's son says we always spoke of Megrahi during the negotiations with BP. The Scots, on the other hand, say we never talked to BP, it was the Brits. And we let him go because he was clearly terminally ill. And this had nothing to do with the prisoner transfer agreement. Don't you think there are some questions to answer?"
The questions now look set to be put, with both MacAskill and Straw among those who may be called for testimony in Washington next week. But whether families such as the Monettis (...) will get the answers they have long awaited, is another matter entirely.
[The same newspaper's editorial on the subject can be read here and an article in The Independent on Sunday here.]
Bob Monetti laughs sarcastically. "This is the story that never goes away, huh?" Just before Christmas in 1988, Monetti was preparing to welcome his son Richard back home. (...) But Richard never made it home.
Thirty-eight minutes after taking off from Heathrow Airport, he was murdered when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up in the skies above Lockerbie.
Bob Monetti and the rest of the family drew some solace after his death from the links they formed here. "The only people who were heroes in this were the Scottish people. The people of Lockerbie were wonderful," he says. Then, just under year ago, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - the man he is convinced killed his son - was released by Scottish ministers. His voice takes on a different tone. He sounds resigned to cynicism. "The Scots caved into the English so that these BP oil contracts could go ahead," he says. "BP does what BP does. They will make money any way they can. The thing that really has hurt is the Scottish reputation. They (the Scottish Government] have been fighting for independence and the first thing they do is cave in." (...)
The outrage felt in America last August when Al Megrahi was freed by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, on compassionate grounds has re-emerged with a vengeance. Scottish and UK ministers are once again facing accusations of having let him go for all the wrong reasons. This week, David Cameron heads to Washington for his first talks in the White House with Barack Obama, with Lockerbie one of the issues being raised. The outcry over the case suggests that the relationship between the UK and the US is no longer quite so special. (...)
The latest burst of senatorial anger over Lockerbie does not have its roots in Scotland but in the oil-filled waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Last week, BP finally plugged the leak in its broken well off the coast of Louisiana, a full 87 days after it first exploded. (...)
Halfway around the world, it emerged that Libya had given approval for BP to start a well in the Gulf of Sirt off the African coast. With awful timing, the oil firm's 2007 deal with Libya to begin exploiting the rich reserves held by the country, was finally being realised.
This was the deal, the Americans remembered, that had been linked to an agreement between the UK and Libyan government to allow prisoners including Al Megrahi to be transferred from one country to the other. BP's oil well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico was not the only thing about to blow. Their sense of injustice already high as a result of the BP oil spill, senators Robert Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand and Frank Lautenberg decided to open a new front. "The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profit?" (...)
Of more interest to the senators are the stories which have emerged in the UK following Al Megrahi's release about the oil firm's alleged involvement. The company reached its agreement with Libya in late 2007, in the wake of Tony Blair's historic meeting with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi - the so-called "deal in the desert". It was here that the pair first discussed, among other things, a prisoner transfer agreement. Quite what the pair actually agreed upon is still a matter of conjecture. For the Libyans, however, the terms of the deal were clear - Al Megrahi was involved. Speaking on Libyan TV last year, Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadaffi told Al Megrahi: "In all the trade, oil and gas deals which I have supervised, you were there on the table. When British interests came to Libya, I used to put you on the table."
BP now makes no bones that it raised the question of the prisoner transfer agreement which Libya wanted signed before the oil exploration deal was agreed. Sir Mark Allan, a former MI5 spy and a consultant for BP, lobbied former Justice Secretary Jack Straw to get the matter dealt with. A spokesman for BP said last week the firm was "concerned about the slow progress that was being made" to resolve the deal. Sir Mark contacted Straw to try to push things along. As it emerged last year, Straw was persuaded; agreeing to include Al Megrahi as part of the PTA deal. Hence the conspiracy has grown legs.
But this view of the saga has several weak points. First, as Straw himself pointed out, he never had the power to actually release Al Megrahi in the first place. So, while intelligence sources insist that Al Megrahi almost certainly came up in the Libya-UK talks, talk of a deal to release him remains fanciful, relying as it does on the improbable scenario of the UK Labour government strong-arming the SNP-led Scottish Government into doing what it wanted.
The UK ambassador to the USA, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, took the unusual step of writing to Kerry on the Senate Committee last week, urging him to effectively tone it down. "The British Government worked with British business to promote legitimate commercial interests with Libya," he wrote. "But there was no link between those legitimate commercial activities and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi."
As for that decision, no-one yet has come up with any explanation beyond the obvious one stated at the time. Despite a huge amount of correspondence being published since, there is no evidence that Kenny MacAskill was influenced by any commercial interests. He actually refused to release Al Megrahi under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement negotiated by the British, with Alex Salmond having already made plain his opposition to it. Instead, with Al Megrahi's plea for clemency ringing in his ears, the Justice Secretary decided to show him compassion. Within St Andrew's House MacAskill's aides understand that American relatives disagree with the decision to release Al Megrahi for compassionate reasons - particularly as he remains alive. But there is frustration they are being dragged into a conspiracy in which they played no part. One senior source says: "Where were these senators in 2007 when Blair did his deal in the desert and what did they think the PTA was all about? Instead, they gave him standing ovations in the Capitol." (...)
Many come from Frank Duggan, another relative, who represents the Victims of Flight 103 group. "So the Brits are now saying it was a mistake to release Megrahi, but we didn't do it the Scots did, and that BP did lobby us but didn't mention Megrahi by name," he wrote on Friday. "Meanwhile, Gaddafi's son says we always spoke of Megrahi during the negotiations with BP. The Scots, on the other hand, say we never talked to BP, it was the Brits. And we let him go because he was clearly terminally ill. And this had nothing to do with the prisoner transfer agreement. Don't you think there are some questions to answer?"
The questions now look set to be put, with both MacAskill and Straw among those who may be called for testimony in Washington next week. But whether families such as the Monettis (...) will get the answers they have long awaited, is another matter entirely.
[The same newspaper's editorial on the subject can be read here and an article in The Independent on Sunday here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)