US has no records on BP and Lockerbie bomber

[This is the headline over a report from The Associated Press news agency on today's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. It reads in part:]

A State Department official said Wednesday that a review of government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison.

The release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last year outraged families of U.S. victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating whether the British-based oil company had sought his freedom to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.

In prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, told lawmakers that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.

BP has acknowledged that it had urged the British government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, but stressed it didn't specify al-Megrahi's case. (...)

McEldowney noted that in 1998, the US and UK wrote a letter to the United Nations secretary general, outlining an agreement for al-Megrahi and another suspect, Amin Khalifa Fhimah, to be tried before a Scottish court established in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted but Fhimah was acquitted. The letter stated, "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom."

She said that back then, the US sought binding assurances that would happen, but the British countered that they couldn't legally bind the hands of future governments.

"They nonetheless assured us of their political commitment that, if convicted, al-Megrahi would remain in Scotland until the completion of his sentence," McEldowney said.

Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general, said that both the Justice and State departments stressed that al-Megrahi serve his full sentence in Scotland from the very beginning.

"This was one of the earliest issues raised by the United States in connection with the negotiations for a trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands, and the United States continued to raise it following Megrahi's conviction and incarceration," he said in prepared testimony.

Wednesday's hearing was originally scheduled for July, but senators postponed it when they couldn't get the man they wanted to testify — outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward. The company instead offered up a regional vice president for Europe.

In a letter to Sen Robert Menendez, D-NJ, this week, Hayward reiterated that BP had no involvement in al-Megrahi's release, and that "no BP witness nor document" could shed any light on the issue.

[A report on the hearing on the STV News website headlined "No evidence of Al-Megrahi deal" contains the following:]

A review of US Government records has found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, it has emerged.

US State Department official Nancy McEldowney confirmed that the Department had "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.

She was speaking in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which is investigating claims of a deal between BP and the Libyan and Scottish Governments to release Al-Megrahi in exchange for oil concessions. (...)

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months.

“The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.

"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.

"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'.”

[The report on the BBC News website contains the following:]

Senate committee chairman Robert Menendez also suggested that there had been confusion over whether or not Megrahi had received chemotherapy prior to release.

Megrahi had indicated, and Scottish medical records seemed to confirm, that he had not had chemotherapy, Mr Menendez said.

But the senator said evidence from an unnamed Scottish official suggested Megrahi had started chemotherapy in July 2009.

Mr Menendez said that the conflicting accounts suggested Scottish government documents had been changed. [Note by RB: if Sen Menendez actually said this, then he is an even greater clown and charlatan than I had supposed him to be.]

In its statement, the Scottish government said it was a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point.

[A report on the website of The Financial Times headlined "US says Lockerbie bomber not dying" can be read here; and a report on the Mail website headlined "Lockerbie bomber's release 'manipulated' by Scottish government to say he was close to death claim US senators as BP also blasted over affair" can be read here.]

Scottish Government statement following Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing

[Various organs of the media have reported the Scottish Government's reaction to Wednesday's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The full statement issued by the Scottish Government to the media is as follows:]

Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:

"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.

"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.

"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."

Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said:

"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.

"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.

"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.

"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.

"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.

"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."

[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]

The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.

In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)

The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.

Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.

Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.

An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.

"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.

"The significance of this is very important.

"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.

"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)

Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.

This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.

"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."

It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.

"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.

"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."

The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.

A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.

A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)

But the senator's office have a different assessment.

"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.

"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."

Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.

The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.

He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."

He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.

"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."

A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."

Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.

"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."

In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.

"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."

US should examine its own conscience

[This is the headline over an editorial in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

The decision by the Scottish Government that the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) director of health, Dr Andrew Fraser, should not give evidence at a United States Senate hearing into the release of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has brought claims they have something to hide.

But the charge should be directed at the US and the Senators should invite evidence from their own State Department. The letter from the US State Department to the Scottish Government effectively accepting the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds as preferable to repatriation under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) confirms the US condemnation of the Scottish Government as hypocrisy of the first order.

The Justice Secretary and the SPS health director are right to rebuff the US Senators’ invitation to attend the hearing into the release of Megrahi. Their actions have already been explained in a letter from Alex Salmond to Senators, along with an offer to answer further questions. It is therefore difficult to see what the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has to gain from the Justice Secretary appearing before them other than to bait him in a febrile political arena.

Wilful confusion has been stoked by US politicians who have deliberately ignored the inconvenient truth that a major obstacle to the PTA was that the only Libyan of any consequence in a British jail, Megrahi, was subject to the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland.

His release last year was on the separate grounds of compassion due to a diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer. Only its timing, which closely followed ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK Government and Libya and the announcement of drilling rights for BP in Libya, has allowed conflation by those seeking to exploit outrage over the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

Nevertheless the Scottish Government’s avowal of transparency is brought into focus by the refusal of the Justice Secretary to explain why he took the unprecedented step for a government minister of holding a private meeting with a prisoner before release. As long as that question remains unanswered, suspicion will continue that Megrahi’s withdrawal of his appeal was part of a deal. If MacAskill has nothing to hide, he should be open about the reason for that meeting, unless there is good cause to keep the matter under wraps. By the same token the US Senators should be honest and decouple Scotland’s compassionate release of Megrahi from BP’s interests in Libya.

The attack on PanAm flight 103 has been mired in the complexities of international politics from the beginning and, unfairly or not, Scottish justice has been found wanting in the international court of public opinion. The most glaring affront to justice, however, will always be that 270 people died on December 21, 1988 as the innocent victims of a terrorist crime. Their memories should be honoured by a quest for the truth, not the sordid continuation of political posturing based on misinformation on the other side of the Atlantic.

[I presume that The Herald also has an article describing in more detail the letter from the US State Department to the Scottish Government. Once that article appears online I shall add a reference to this post.

There is no further article on the document: I went so far as to buy a copy of the newspaper to make sure! What there is is a full page of readers' letters, nine out of the total of ten of which support the Scottish Government's stance. They can be read here.

An article by the paper's UK political editor Michael Settle contains the following:]

The US inquiry into release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was in danger of becoming an embarrassing no-show last night after Jack Straw announced he too had declined the offer to attend.

The former justice secretary said he could not help the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing because he had “absolutely nothing to do” with the decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, which he stressed was an “entirely separate decision for the Scottish Justice Secretary”.

However, the SNP’s Christine Grahame insisted Straw had no principled reason not to go, given his activities directly related to the committee’s central point of concern about oil.

She insisted his decision was deeply embarrassing for Scottish Labour, which had attacked Kenny MacAskill for declining the Senate’s invitation. (...)

Invitations to five foreign witnesses have gone out from the Senate committee and three have so far been rejected from Straw, MacAskill and Dr Andrew Fraser, the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service, who drew up the final medical report on the Libyan.

It is not yet known if Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, will attend or Sir Mark Allen, a former lobbyist for the oil giant who helped broker the £590 million “deal in the desert” with Libya, but in light of the rejections, this is thought unlikely.

Confusion still surrounds the invitation written out for Tony Blair, the former prime minister, to attend but which was then swiftly withdrawn. The committee simply said it had been “an error”. (...)

Yesterday, there was a deal of support for Straw and MacAskill’s decision to decline to attend the Senate hearing. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Conservative foreign secretary, who was Scottish secretary at the time of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, said British ministers “should co-operate but not to the extent to give evidence in person”.

Sir Christopher Meyer, the former UK ambassador to Washington, said: “As a matter of principle, a British government or a Scottish government should not submit to the jurisdiction of an American congressional committee.”

Mike Gapes, Labour chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the senators of political grandstanding while his colleague Kevan Jones, a former Labour defence minister, claimed they were engaged in a witch-hunt against BP. (...)

Meantime, the Justice for Megrahi committee, which believes the Libyan to be innocent, called for the Scottish Government to launch its own inquiry, which would cover all aspects of the Lockerbie case. [Note by RB: The call for an inquiry is fully reported in an article on The Guardian website.]

The Senate committee’s hearing takes place at 7.30pm UK time on Thursday and is expected to last three hours.

[The Scotsman has an editorial on the subject. It is supportive of Kenny MacAskill -- perhaps a first for this virulently anti-SNP newspaper. It reads in part:]

In matters of international relations, protocol counts for much, diplomacy a great deal but integrity most of all.

The US senators who have sent out requests for Scotland's justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to appear before them in their inquiry into the Megrahi affair might usefully have borne this in mind.

Why expect Mr MacAskill to respond positively when the former UK prime minister Tony Blair has not been so summoned? It was Mr Blair who was in the tent with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi when a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) was discussed. It was Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi who was behind the plot to blow up the Pan Am jet with the callous slaughter of life over Lockerbie. It was both Col Gaddafi and Mr Blair that BP addressed in their lobbying over oil interests in Libya. As the First Minister Alex Salmond has made clear in his reply to the senators, "if your committee is concerned about BP's role or the PTA ,then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your inquiries". Quite.

The Scottish Government, publicly and by letter to the senators, has made clear the independent status of Scots law, the grounds under Scots law and the circumstances of Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. It has also emphatically stated that at no time was it lobbied by BP on this matter.

Perhaps the senators felt that it would be unseemly to be seen to interrogate a former British prime minister who has been honoured by Congress. (...) Whatever the reason for the senators' actions, it is surely Mr Blair and Mr Straw, not Mr MacAskill, who are more central to the course of their inquiries. Requesting Mr MacAskill but not Mr Blair is at best asymmetric. But it smacks of an easy gesture to the gallery and also leaves the impression, unintended we are sure, that the Scottish justice secretary would be the easier to fry in the public pan.

While there is a wholly respectable case for Mr MacAskill to have accepted the senators' invitation and taken the opportunity to explain Scotland's legal system and put their concerns over its independence at rest, the senators have made it difficult for him to do so while not appearing to be a substitute for inquiries best addressed elsewhere.

In other circumstances Scottish ministers would have been happy to make their position plain to an American audience understandably outraged by an act of wanton terrorism and understandably appalled if Megrahi's release was the result of what has become widely known as "the deal in the desert".

Lockerbie and the USA

[This is the heading over a press release just issued by the Scottish Government. It reads:]

First Minister Alex Salmond has today written to Senator Robert Menendez of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, responding to his five questions in relation the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing which Senator Menendez is chairing on Thursday (July 29).

Last week, Mr Salmond issued a substantive letter to Senator John Kerry, which Senator Kerry described as "thoughtful and thorough". (...)

The letter is below:

_____________________________

Dear Senator Menendez

Thank you for your letters of 22 and 23 July 2010 to the Scottish Government.

I wrote to Senator Kerry in his role as Chairman of the Committee on 21 July 2010, setting out the Scottish Government's position on the key issues that have been raised in recent weeks, and Senator Kerry has noted his appreciation for what he described as a "thoughtful and thorough" reply. I have given permission for my letter to be entered into the official record of the hearing on 29 July 2010. I have also made available Scottish Government staff in Washington to answer questions from staff of Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I am grateful for your acknowledgement of this and our offer of further assistance.

You have asked for further information in a number of areas. I have asked officials to respond to your requests, and responses can be found in the attached Annex.

The Scottish Government would be happy to write to you with answers to any further questions you may have. As I indicated to Senator Kerry, the Scottish Government is respectfully declining your invitations to attend the hearing.

Alex Salmond

ANNEX

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AL-MEGRAHI

1. Any documents including communications to and from Scottish Government officials, relating to the decision to release Al Megrahi or negotiations to release Al Megrahi. This request includes any communications between Scottish Commerce Secretary for Justice Kenneth MacAskill and UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.

The Scottish Government has released all correspondence from the Scottish Government to the UK Government relating to these issues. Within these documents there are some redactions to protect the confidentiality of the US and UK Governments. We would be happy to remove the redactions with the agreement of the US and UK Governments.

Correspondence from the Scottish Government to the UK Government

The UK Government has released correspondence from it to the Scottish Government relating to these issues.

Ministry of Justice - correspondence
Foreign and Commonwealth Office - correspondence

In addition to the above, there is a range of documents relating to the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, for example the PTA application and process, the compassionate release application and process, correspondence, and the announcement of the decision. The link below provides access to these documents.
www.scotland.gov.uk/lockerbie

Please note that Kenny MacAskill is the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government, not the "Scottish Commerce Secretary for Justice".

2. Any documents, including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the Justice Committee investigation of the Al Megrahi release, the Scottish Parliament investigation of the Al Megrahi release, or any other investigation of the Al Megrahi case and release.

There have been two Parliamentary inquiries into these issues:

Scottish Parliament Justice Committee: Below are links to the Committee's papers, the Committee's final report and the Scottish Government's response.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice's evidence to the committee - is available in the official report from the Committee's meeting of 1 December 2009

UK Parliament Scottish Affairs Committee - Committee's final report on Scotland and the UK: cooperation and communication between governments

3. Any documents, including communications to or from senior Scottish Government officials, relating to BP's negotiations for or interest in oil exploration in Libya.

There are no such documents.

4. Any documents, including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the British Government's position on Al Megrahi's release or transfer to Libyan custody.

All exchanges between the Scottish and UK Governments have been published where we have been given permission to do so.

The UK Government's position regarding the release of Mr Al Megrahi was stated by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in the UK House of Commons on 12 October 2009:

"British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation, would be damaged - perhaps badly - if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison. Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction, we made it clear .... that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK Government and that as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody".

5. Any documents including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the US government's position on Al Megrahi's release or transfer to Libyan custody.

The US Government has refused publication of various documents. The link below contains the correspondence with the US Government about this. The Scottish Government cannot breach the long-standing practice of holding in confidence government to government communications, by publishing this material without the permission of the US Government. The Senate Committee may wish to pursue these issues. The material related to the US Government includes representations by the US Government regarding the release of Mr Al-Megrahi and notes of meetings between the Scottish and US Governments over the period 2008-9.

Correspondence with the US Government regarding publication of documents

Senator Lautenberg asks Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate

BP's role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison is being questioned in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Sen Frank Lautenberg, who is requesting an investigation into the oil company's success in securing a drilling contract in Libya.

Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, won early release from prison last year after a doctor testified that he was near death and it would be compassionate to let him die a free man. But there are suggestions that Megrahi, who was given just weeks to live but is still alive and kicking, may have been the linchpin in BP's efforts to secure drilling rights in the Gulf of Sidra.

"The prospect that oil contracts between BP and the government of Libya may have affected the release, as well as new questions about the veracity of medical reports detailing Mr Megrahi’s health at the time, are disturbing developments that demand the attention of Congress, Lautenberg, D-NJ, wrote to Sens John Kerry, D-Mass, and Richard Lugar, R-Ind, the co-chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee. (...)

The UK-based BP, which is responsible for the oil spill that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for 85 [days], admitted that in 2007 it raised concern that a "prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan government might hurt" the oil deal, according to Lautenberg.

Megrahi originally had not been part of the prisoner transfer, but former British Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw later cited "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in including Megrahi.

BP could earn as much as $20 billion from the deal with Libya, set to begin next month.

"It is shocking to even contemplate that BP is profiting from the release of a terrorist with the blood of 189 Americans on his hands," Lautenberg wrote. "The families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 deserve to know whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests in this case."

[From a report published today on the website of FOX News. The Senator's letter can be read here.

An article on the website of the New York Daily News contains the following:]

BP admits it had an interest in the prsioner swap, and was concerned it would derail its drilling deal, but the company insists it did push the Megrahi case.

BP spokesman Mark Salt e-mailed the following:

*It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.

*Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP’s exploration agreement.

*However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al-Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK Government.

US Senator seeks Lockerbie 'whistleblowers'

[It appears that the stories circulating on Sunday were accurate. Senator Menendez is calling upon Scottish civil servants and professionals to break their employment contracts and, in some cases, the law of the land by supplying information to him. A report by the news agency Agence France Presse reads in part:]

A US senator investigating the Lockerbie bomber's release called Monday for "whistleblowers" with behind-the-scenes knowledge of the controversy to share their secrets with his probe.

"All correspondence will remain confidential and identities will not be disclosed unless permission is granted," Democratic Senator Robert Menendez promised potential sources nearly one year after the bomber was freed.

The lawmaker's office said it was "interested in hearing from whistleblowers" with information on a wide range of issues tied to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi in August 2009 on compassionate grounds.

Menendez sought details of: Talks between oil giant BP and Libya from 2003 onward; discussions between Britain's government and BP regarding oil and gas exploration in Libya from 2003 onward; negotiations between Britain and Libya from 2003 onward; and Megrahi's health before and after his release.

Menendez also sought information about the British, Libyan, and Scottish governments' "perspective" on Megrahi's release; the Scottish medical community's view of Megrahi's diagnosis; and the bomber's legal representation throughout the process. (...)

Menendez planned to chair a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter "in the coming weeks" after an earlier session was canceled due to lack of cooperation from the governments involved as well as BP.

[The whistleblowing story now also appears on the US Congress website The Hill.

The United Kingdom Government should immediately, and in the strongest possible terms, require the US State Department, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to disown and deplore this attempt by a US legislator to induce breaches of the law of a friendly foreign country. And the Scottish Government (which has no foreign relations powers but which has recently been in correspondence with Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) should immediately write to Senator Kerry demanding that he issue a statement dissociating the Committee from Senator Menendez's outrageous attempt to suborn Scottish public servants.]

Lockerbie probe may prove uncomfortable for Obama administration

[This is the headline over a report published today on the CNS News website. The following are excerpts:]

The four Democratic US senators probing the early release of the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing believe there were links to a BP oil deal, but their inquiry may have the unintended consequence of raising questions about just how strongly the Obama administration opposed the Libyan’s release. (...)

Scottish government ministers, stung by accusations that they released Megrahi to ease a massive oil exploration contract in Libya, are pointing out that it is the US government that is blocking the release of two documents relating to the decision.

One of the documents is a demarche and letter to Scottish First Minister Salmond from deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in London, Richard LeBaron, dated August 12, 2009, eight days before Megrahi was released.

Leaked to London’s Sunday Times this week, the letter reportedly argues that Megrahi should remain in custody – but goes on to say that if Scotland concludes he must be released, then doing so on compassionate grounds would be “far preferable” to his repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) which Britain negotiated with Libya in 2007. (...)

The second document which Scotland says the US is withholding permission to make public is a note of a telephone conversation between Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder, apparently on June 26, 2009. The contents of that note remain secret.

Edinburgh says the two documents – the LeBaron letter and the MacAskill-Holder note – were both “part of the package of advice” MacAskill had before him when he made the decision to send Megrahi home last August.

At the height of last August’s controversy, Scotland made public its correspondence relating to the matter. On August 26, it asked the US government for permission to include the two documents in those it was releasing – offering to do so in redacted form if necessary.

But in a written reply on Sept 1, LeBaron declined. (...)

CNSNews.com also asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether it would request that the administration make the two documents available for its hearing into the matter, scheduled for Thursday. In response, spokesman Frederick Jones merely said the committee did not have the documents in its possession.

Edinburgh law professor Robert Black, an expert on the Lockerbie case, opined on his blog that if the LeBaron letter effectively accepted Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds as preferable to transfer under the prisoner transfer agreement, “it is unlikely – in a mid-term election year – that the US government would consent to its release or that Democrat senators would seriously try to persuade it to do so.” (...)

Potential witnesses not known to have been called by the committee include:

-- Tony Blair, the former British prime minister whose 2007 visit to Libya included an agreement on a PTA and the signing of “the single largest exploration commitment in BP’s 100-year history.”

-- British Ambassador to the US Nigel Sheinwald, who as a foreign policy advisor to Blair accompanied him on two key visits to Libya.

-- Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, who played a key role in Tripoli’s political and trade negotiations with Britain. (He has traveled to the US before, and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the State Department in late 2008.)

-- Graham Forbes, chairman of the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which after a four-year investigation concluded in 2007 that there “may have been a miscarriage of justice” and recommended that Megrahi be allowed to an appeal.

-- Prof Robert Black, the law expert who designed the unusual format under which the Lockerbie trial was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law. Black in 2005 called Megrahi’s conviction “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for 100 years.”

-- Prof Hans Koechler, an Austrian academic nominated by the UN to observe the 84-day trial, who also believes justice was not done.

-- Robert Baer, a retired Middle East CIA operative, who has claimed that Iran was behind the bombing.

[The following are two paragraphs from a report on the CNN website:]

A pair of US senators and the families of Lockerbie bombing victims will hold a news conference Monday in Times Square ahead of this week's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter.

Sen Robert Menendez of New Jersey will chair Thursday's hearing on last year's release by Scotland of a Libyan man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also is a member of the committee.

Senate postpones BP-Lockerbie hearing

[This is the headline over a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website. It reads in part:]

Senators postponed a hearing on whether British oil giant BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying on Tuesday key witnesses had "stonewalled" the investigation by refusing to appear.

Senator Robert Menendez announced the postponement of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing set for Thursday and said it would be rescheduled "in the near future." (...)

Menendez said the Senate committee had called two Scottish officials, former British Justice Secretary Jack Straw and two BP executives -- including departing chief executive Tony Hayward -- but all had declined to testify.

"It is utterly disappointing and I think pretty outrageous that none of these key witnesses will cooperate with our request to answer questions before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They have stonewalled," Menendez told reporters.

"It is a game of diplomatic tennis that is worthy of Wimbledon but not worthy on behalf of the lives of the families who still have to deal with this terrorist act and the consequences of the lost loved ones."

He said the panel would conduct a longer-term investigation of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, noting the Scottish government did offer to provide answers to further questions.

"We appreciate that and we will take them up on their offer," he said.

[The report on the BBC News website can be read here.

The Herald's report contains the following:]

Dr Jim Swire, who daughter was killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and who has protested the innocence of Megrahi, said: “Kenny MacAskill made himself pretty clear that he used compassionate release in line with Scots law and explained to the Senators that he had nothing further to add.

“I suppose it is quite embarrassing for the Senate if they have no one to testify.”

[The report in The Independent includes the following:]

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash, said today that the US senators were looking at links between BP's commercial interest in Libya and the return of Megrahi.

"That's a question that if anyone from Britain could address, it would be people from Westminster," Dr Swire told BBC Radio Scotland.

"People have forgotten that there is no real link between his release and the so-called 'deal in the desert', because Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond didn't want to touch the prisoner transfer agreement which was set up in the deal in the desert."

Megrahi was eventually freed under compassionate release after medical evidence indicated the bomber had three months to live.

Dr Swire believes that Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

"Are we not interested that the man who has been freed by Kenny MacAskill might, in fact, not be the man who was involved in causing the tragedy?" he said.

"That seems to me over-ridingly a more important question than the question of the minutiae of why he was freed.

"I can understand why they major in on those aspects of it, but I do think it's relatively peripheral."

[The Newsnet Scotland report on the issue can be read here. Newsnet Scotland's coverage of the whole saga of the US Senate circus has been exemplary.]

Money and US politics conspire in bid to link BP with Megrahi

[This is the headline over a column in today's edition of The Scotsman by commentator George Kerevan. It reads in part:]

Why has the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee decided to open investigations into BP and the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi? Why did it demand the appearance of Kenny MacAskill, BP chief executive Tony Hayward, Jack Straw and even David Cameron for questioning?

Actually, the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee is not particularly interested in this subject. What happened is that a couple of Democratic members of the committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, asked the chairman, ex-presidential candidate John Kerry, if they could hold a single day's hearings as a publicity stunt. The patrician Kerry agreed as a favour.

It should be no surprise that Senate Democrats are giving BP a public kicking and trying to stage television-friendly Senate hearings on the emotive subject of Megrahi. For November sees crucial midterm elections in which the Democrats are predicted to do badly. The latest polls suggest they will lose seven Senate seats, 30 House seats and ten governorships.

Four Democratic senators are pushing the implausible allegation that BP and the former Labour government influenced Kenny MacAskill to let Megrahi go. As well as Menendez and Gillibrand, the quartet includes Charles Schumer, from New York, and Frank Lautenberg, from New Jersey.

Only a third of the Senate is up for re-election but, crucially, that includes both New York seats, which explains why Schumer and Gillibrand are being so outspoken. Also, the New York State upper house is under threat from the Republicans. Ditto in New Jersey, where the Republicans won the governorship last year.

Who are these four senators and what is their personal agenda? [There then follows a lengthy exploration of the murky backgrounds of the four. The article concludes:]

I commiserate with those families who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie massacre. Rather than playing political games for election purposes, I think there should be a genuine inquiry into who really did the bombing. Perhaps the US and British governments would like to open their secret files and tell us what they know.

[The website of USA Today contains an editorial headed "Our view on Lockerbie bomber: The terrorist who didn't die leaves a trail of red faces" and a condensed version of Alex Salmond's letter to Senator John Kerry under the heading "Opposing view on Lockerbie bomber: A good-faith decision".]

Scots defend Lockerbie convict’s release

[This is the heading over a post by Robert Mackey on The Lede, the news blog of The New York Times. It reads in part:]

Scotland’s government will not be providing any new documents on the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 to a Senate panel investigating the matter, it said in a statement on Wednesday night.

The Scottish government also declined a request from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to have Scotland’s justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, appear next week at a hearing that will look into allegations that BP might have lobbied for the return of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya in order to secure an oil contract with the Libyan government. BP denies that it lobbied for Mr Megrahi’s release but said that it did press for a prisoner transfer agreement to be completed.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond wrote in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that his government, which has authority over justice matters and made the decision to release Mr Megrahi last year, had already published all of the relevant documents under its control. He added: “The only significant documents that we have not published are US government representations and some correspondence from the UK government, where permission was declined. The Scottish government is, and has always been, willing to publish these remaining documents if the US and UK governments are willing to give permission for that to be done.”

Mr. Salmond also insisted that even if BP might have lobbied the government of the United Kingdom to complete a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, his regional authority was not involved in those discussions and eventually decided to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds because of a terminal illness rather than transfer him to Libyan custody. He wrote:

"My understanding is that the recent interest from the Committee and from other Senators stems mainly from concerns over any role played by BP in al-Megrahi’s release. I can say unequivocally that the Scottish government has never, at any point, received any representations from BP in relation to al-Megrahi. That is to say we had no submissions or lobbying of any kind from BP, either oral or written, and, to my knowledge, the subject of al-Megrahi was never raised by any BP representative to any Scottish Government Minister. That includes the Justice Minister to whom it fell to make the decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release on a quasi-judicial basis. [...]

"If your Committee is concerned about BP’s role or the [prisoner transfer agreement] then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your inquiries. There is nothing the Scottish Government can add to this since we have had no contact with BP at any point in the process of considering al-Megrahi’s position."

While outrage over the release of Mr. Megrahi in the United States has returned to the headlines with the new focus on BP, continued doubts about his guilt by some legal experts and family members of the victims of the bombing in Britain have led them to call for “an inquiry into the atrocity itself.” Pamela Dix, whose brother, Peter Dix, was killed in the bombing wrote on the Guardian’s Web site that an inquiry was needed because, “The families have faced years of denials and obfuscation, as we have painstakingly sought answers to the many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. The BP issue is just another element in the shameful way in which the truth behind Britain’s biggest mass murder has been hidden.”

[The post ends with a reprise of concerns about the soundness of Mr Megrahi's conviction that had been outlined in a post on The Lede in August 2009 and quotations from Gareth Peirce's article in London Review of Books.]

Salmond hits back at Senate on Megrahi 'misinformation'

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

Alex Salmond told John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, that despite attempts by the Scottish Government to set the record straight, “misinformation” was still given to the hearing looking into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

While not participating in the hearing, the Scottish Government moved behind the scenes to deny allegations Megrahi had been on chemotherapy in Scotland and that his prognosis was made by a primary care physician who did not have the expertise to determine how advanced his prostate cancer was.

But the claims were still put to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and medical experts speaking at the Senate forum accepted he was undergoing chemotherapy and argued that would never have justified a three-month prognosis.

Mr Salmond said a letter intended to “set the record straight” had been passed to Senator Robert Menendez before he led the hearing.

It explained that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy while on Scottish soil and that the Libyan’s prognosis came from “the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service”, its director of health and care, Dr Andrew Fraser.

Mr Salmond said: “It was therefore with intense disappointment that I noted that the same misinformation was presented to the hearing, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and no reference was made to the correction provided well in advance by the Scottish Government.

“The Scottish Government has made every effort to provide members of the US Senate and their staff with information to assist their understanding of the matter, and it is extremely unfortunate that the concerns that I expressed in my letter of September 10, 2010 ... about the prospects for a credible and impartial investigation, have been realised.

“I should therefore be grateful if you would investigate, as a matter of urgency, how the committee came to be misled in this manner at its hearing.”

Senate panel sets hearing on BP-Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over a report on the website of the Reuters news agency. It reads in part:]

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a July 29 hearing into last year's release of a Libyan convicted for the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, and related actions by BP.

The committee said on Thursday it will ask officials of BP plc to testify after the UK-based oil giant acknowledged that it had lobbied the British government in 2007 to agree to transfer Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi to Tripoli. The company said it was concerned that his continued imprisonment in Scotland could negatively affect an offshore oil drilling deal with Libya.

"BP told the UK government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya," BP said in a statement.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who had opposed Megrahi's release, said "details that have emerged in recent days in the press have raised new concerns."

Britain's ambassador to Washington sent a letter to Kerry on Thursday "to explain the facts" surrounding the circumstances of Megrahi's release.

"Under Scottish law, Megrahi was entitled to be considered for release on compassionate grounds. Whilst we disagreed with the decision to release him, we have to respect the independence of the process," Sir Nigel Sheinwald said in the letter.

"I am troubled by the claims made in the press that Megrahi was released because of an oil deal involving BP, and that the medical evidence supporting his release was paid for by the Libyan government. Both of these allegations are untrue," Sheinwald added.

Sheinwald said he hoped his letter would help to set the record straight and correct inaccuracies that he said were harmful to the United Kingdom. (...)

The Senate panel said it will ask "government experts" to testify at the hearing, but did not release details on witnesses it plans to invite.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would look into a request by several senators that her agency investigate.

US Senate committee backs down over plans to call Tony Blair over Lockerbie bomber release

[This is the headline over a report on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]

The US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber appears to have mysteriously backed down over plans to call Tony Blair to testify.

The committee seemingly drafted a letter to ask the former Prime Minister to appear before it but this was never sent.

It remains unclear if a genuine error was made somewhere in the Senate. The committee may have decided that it was too controversial to ask him

Frederick Jones, communications director for the Senate foreign relations committee, said: “Mr Blair was not and will not be an invitee.”

He added: “I deeply regret any confusion this may have caused. We still have to get to the bottom of this.”

Jack Straw, the former Justice and Foreign Secretary, has been asked to appear next week before a US Senate committee investigating the possible role of BP in the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber. (...)

Senators have written to Mr Straw asking him to the hearing next week along with BP executives and members of the Scottish devolved administration.

BP, which has won contracts in Libya, has admitted it lobbied Mr Straw in 2007 to introduce a prisoner transfer agreement with the North African state.

Senators are focusing on the relationship between Mr Straw and Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 official who helped BP to win the valuable contracts. Sir Mark has also been asked to appear.

He became a special adviser to BP and had at least two telephone conversations with Mr Straw to discuss the prisoner transfer deal. He also had meetings with Col Muammar Gaddafi.

Mr Straw said last night: “I have no objection in principle to explaining the background to the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. Indeed, I have done so on a number of occasions before the United Kingdom Parliament.

“However, before coming to any decision as to whether to accept this invitation I shall be consulting Gordon Brown, as prime minister at the time, and seeking the advice of the Foreign Office.

“It is, in my experience, highly unusual for the legislature of one sovereign state to conduct an inquiry into decisions of another sovereign state, including, as in this case, decisions by a devolved administration on the release of a prisoner.”

[An amusing piece on the "phoney letter to Tony" appears on the Sky News website.

For the current state of play on who will attend the Senate committee's hearing, see "Will anybody attend the US Lockerbie hearing?" on The First Post website.]

The Al-Megrahi release: one year later

[This is the heading over the official record of yesterday's hearing by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It contains a video of the proceedings and transcripts of the evidence and can be accessed here. I am indebted to blog commentator Bunntamas for supplying this link.

Of the media coverage of the hearing, perhaps the best is in The Wall Street Journal. Its report is headlined "US says Scotland ignored request to examine Lockerbie bomber" and reads in part:]

Scotland disregarded a US request last year for "an independent and comprehensive medical exam" to determine whether the Lockerbie bomber was close enough to death to qualify for compassionate release from jail under Scottish guidelines, a Department of Justice official said Wednesday.

The statement, made by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, came in a long-awaited US Senate hearing on the release of Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi (...)

"The release on compassionate grounds was deeply, deeply flawed and perhaps even intentionally skewed to allow for al-Megrahi's release," Sen Robert Menendez (D, NJ), who chaired the committee, said in his opening remarks.

During the hearing, Mr Swartz said Attorney General Eric Holder told Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill that the US disagreed vehemently with any decision to release Mr Megrahi from jail.

The US also told the Scottish government that, in the event Scotland decided to go against US wishes and release Mr Megrahi anyway, it should do so only under two conditions: One, that Mr Megrahi should first undergo an "independent and comprehensive medical exam establishing that he had three months to live," and two, that Mr Megrahi be kept under observation in Scotland instead of being sent home to Libya, Mr Swartz said.

"As you know, sadly, neither condition was met," Mr Swartz said. (...)

During the hearing, prostate-cancer experts James Mohler and Oliver Sartor testified that the three-month prognosis that secured Mr Megrahi's release made no sense, given that the convicted bomber was considering starting chemotherapy for the first time around the time of his release.

"There is no conceivable way that a cancer specialist or anyone familiar with the treatment of prostate cancer could have given Mr Megrahi a three-month survival prognosis," Dr Mohler said.

Ms McEldowney and Sen Menendez reiterated calls for Scotland to release the full medical documents that led to the prognosis. "The only medical report relevant to the Cabinet Secretary's decision was the report of Dr Andrew Fraser, which has already been published by the Scottish Government," a Scottish government spokeswoman said Wednesday.

[The report in The Times is headlined "Fury at Senate aide’s claim on al-Megrahi treatment" and contains the following:]

Alex Salmond’s government reacted with fury last night after claims were made to a US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had received chemotherapy treatment before leaving Scotland.

The suggestion was made by an aide to Senator Robert Menendez, who is heading the Capitol Hill hearing, after a visit by the unnamed member of staff to Scotland earlier this month. The Scottish government said last night that it had written to the Senate hearing demanding that “the misinformation” be corrected.

The aide, in a report to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he had met George Burgess, Scotland’s deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing, at the time of al-Megrahi’s release. According to the aide, Mr Burgess said the bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland.

The aide also claimed that the prognosis that al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, had only three months to live was made by a prison doctor and not, as the Scottish government has said, by Dr Andrew Fraser, the medical director of the Scottish Prison Service. (...)

The aide’s version of events would appear to conflict with the published minute of the prison meeting between al-Megrahi and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, two weeks before the Libyan’s release. This quoted al-Megrahi as telling Mr MacAskill that he was due to start chemotherapy. (...)

A Scottish government spokesman said: “The Senator’s staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed. We wrote to the committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.”

[The Telegraph website's report headlined "Cancer experts brand Lockerbie bomber release 'ridiculous'" can be read here; Newsnet Scotland's report headed "Labour urge US Senators to 'join with us' as both question Megrahi medical evidence" can be read here; that on the website of The Financial Times can be read here; and that on Express website can be read here.]

Witnesses at US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to hold a hearing this week over last year's controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber two months after a similar hearing was canceled.

One of the leading senators to press for a probe of the release of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), will preside over the hearing on Wednesday morning. But absent the list of scheduled witnesses are many key figures who declined to attend a planned hearing in July that was canceled because of what Menendez called stonewalling by British and Scottish officials.

Scheduled to testify on Wednesday are Nancy McEldowney, a State Department official who deals with European affairs and Bruce Swartz, who is a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's criminal division. Dr James Mohler, a top urologist at a Buffalo, NY cancer center will also appear before the panel. (...)

In July, Menendez sought the testimony of key figures such as Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who freed al-Megrahi and former UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.

They also requested that BP CEO Tony Hayward attend the hearing over suspicions that the company lobbied for Megrahi's release in order to secure oil leases in Libya, the bomber's country of origin.

Menendez said in July that the foreign relations panel would shift its focus to a "longer-term multidimensional inquiry" into al-Megrahi's release (...)

[From a report on the US Congress blog The Hill. Just the tiniest hint here of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]

Letter from First Minister to Senator Kerry

[What follows is the text of a letter sent today by the First Minister, Alex Salmond, to the chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, Senator John Kerry.]

Dear Senator Kerry

I am writing to you about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's recent interest in the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. This letter sets out the Scottish Government's position on the key issues that have been raised in recent days. I trust it will assist your Committee's consideration of this matter.

I want first of all to restate the revulsion of the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland at the bombing of Flight Pan Am 103 and to acknowledge the terrible pain and suffering inflicted on the victims and the relatives of all those who died in the Lockerbie atrocity. Whatever different views we have about the release of Al-Megrahi, I am sure we stand together on that.

My understanding is that the recent interest from the Committee and from other Senators stems mainly from concerns over any role played by BP in Al-Megrahi's release. I can say unequivocally that the Scottish Government has never, at any point, received any representations from BP in relation to Al-Megrahi. That is to say we had no submissions or lobbying of any kind from BP, either oral or written, and, to my knowledge, the subject of Al-Megrahi was never raised by any BP representative to any Scottish Government Minister. That includes the Justice Minister to whom it fell to make the decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release on a quasi-judicial basis.

Where BP has admitted that it played a role is in encouraging the UK Government to conclude a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with the Libyan Government. I must make clear that the Scottish Government strongly opposed the PTA and the memorandum that led to it was agreed without our knowledge and against our wishes. Indeed it was the Scottish Government which first drew attention to these negotiations involving former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Libyan counterparts as soon as we learned of them in 2007. By definition, a PTA with Libya concerned Al-Megrahi since he was the only Libyan national in Scottish custody. This point was underlined when the UK Government failed to exclude Al-Megrahi from the face of the agreement.

As was highlighted last year, the Scottish Government rejected the application for transfer of Al-Megrahi under the PTA specifically on the basis that the US Government and families of victims in the United States had been led to believe that such a prisoner transfer would not be possible for anyone convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. If your Committee is concerned about BP's role or the PTA then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your enquiries. There is nothing the Scottish Government can add to this since we have had no contact with BP at any point in the process of considering Al-Megrahi's position.

The position of the then UK Government in this matter was best expressed by the former Foreign Secretary Mr Milliband in his statement to the House of Commons on 12 October 2009 when he said "The UK Government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision. Although the decision was not one for the UK Government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation would be damaged. .. if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison."

The decision of the Scottish Government to release Al-Megrahi was made on the basis of an application for compassionate release. This is a separate and long-standing process within the Scottish justice system under which a total of 39 prisoners - including Al-Megrahi have been released since the present provisions were introduced in 1993. During that period, all applications meeting the required criteria and which had support from the Scottish Prison Service, doctors and social work staff, and, in appropriate cases, the Parole Board for Scotland, were granted. I can assure you that consideration of Al-Megrahi's application followed the due process of Scots Law at all stages and that the decision was made in good faith and on the basis of the appropriate criteria.

In order to demonstrate that due process was followed, we published all the key documents related to the decision where permission for publication was given. The only significant documents that we have not published are US Government representations and some correspondence from the UK Government, where permission was declined. The Scottish Government is, and has always been, willing to publish these remaining documents if the US and UK Governments are willing to give permission for that to be done.

There has been some questioning of the medical advice that was used to inform the decision on compassionate release. That advice was compiled by Dr Andrew Fraser, the Director of Health and Care in the Scottish Prison Service, drawing on medical expertise provided by two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and the primary care physician. All of these specialists are employed by the National Health Service in Scotland. I do not believe there is any value in questioning the professional integrity of Dr Fraser, who made clinical judgements in good faith and who had no interest in giving anything other than the most professional standard of advice he could offer. There is no evidence that any of the doctors were placed under any outside influence whatsoever and what they provided was an objective view of Al-Megrahi's condition at that time.

Quite separately, the Libyan Government commissioned and paid for advice from other leading cancer specialists. These reports commissioned by the Libyan Government played no part in the decision on compassionate release. Indeed, the report most widely quoted, compiled by Professor Sikora, was not received by the Scottish Government until four days after the medical advice on compassionate release had been presented to the Scottish Justice Minister. I can therefore reassure you and your Committee that the medical evidence which informed the decision to release Al-Megrahi took no account of any assessments paid for by the Libyan Government.

I know that some of your colleagues have questioned how Al-Megrahi can still be alive 11 months after release, when the decision was based on medical advice that 3 months was a reasonable prognosis for his life expectancy. While he has lived for longer than the prognosis suggested, there was a recognition at the time that he could die sooner or live longer. This was made clear in the Scottish Government's public statements, and was an acknowledgement that prognosis in cancer cases is subject to several variables that could affect the estimate of life expectancy. The fact remains, however, that Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer.

I am aware of comments from Secretary of State Clinton to the effect that she would encourage the UK Government and Scottish Government to review how the decisions were reached. I would note that the Scottish Government's actions have already been subject to scrutiny by Committees of both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Their reports and our responses are a matter of public record. There is nothing within them to challenge the Scottish Government's position that the decision was made in good faith and in line with due process. However we will gladly co-operate with the UK Cabinet Secretary in reviewing the publication of any further documents germane to the case.

On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government do not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity. The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature. As was indicated last year, the Scottish Government would be happy to co-operate fully with such an inquiry. I would add that the case remains open with regard to others who may have had an involvement, with Mr Al-Megrahi, in the Lockerbie atrocity. Scottish and US authorities continue to work together in this area.

I am aware that the US Government and many relatives of those who died, particularly in the US, profoundly disagree with the Scottish Government's decision to release Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. I do not expect anything I say will change that but I do think it is important to put on record the background to that decision and reassure you that it was made with integrity and following a clear legal process. I hope that my doing so will assist the Committee.

I am copying this letter to Senators Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer and to Secretary of State Clinton. I am also passing a copy to the US Consulate in Edinburgh.

Alex Salmond

US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Megrahi hearing

According to a snippet in The Wall Street Journal, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is due to hold a hearing on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi on Wednesday, 29 September 2010.

No economic or commercial motives for Megrahi release decision

[What follows is the text of a press release issued by the Scottish Government on this date in 2010.]

First Minister Alex Salmond has today replied to the letter from Senator Menendez of July 29.

This follows the First Minister's previous letter to Senator Menendez on July 26, which answered five detailed questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also provided copies of documents.

The First Minister has also previously written to Senator John Kerry on July 21, providing comprehensive information and assistance ahead of the planned hearing which was later postponed. Senator Kerry described this correspondence as "thoughtful and thorough".

The letter is copied below:

Dear Senator Menendez

Thank you for your letter of 29 July.

I have made clear in my letters to you and to Senator Kerry that the Scottish Government's decision to decline your previous invitation for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Dr Fraser to attend a hearing in the US was based on principle rather than on any issue of practicality.

The most appropriate way for us to assist the Foreign Relations Committee is to provide a statement of the position of the Scottish Government, as I have done, and to answer any questions that the Committee may have in writing, as we have also done.

Scottish Ministers and public officials are properly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to other legislatures. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which serving members of the US Government would agree to appear as witnesses in hearings or inquiries held by the legislature of another country, and there are many high-profile and indeed current examples of the US Government declining such invitations.

Your letter again seeks to link BP with the decision made by the Scottish Government to grant Mr Al-Megrahi compassionate release. No-one has produced any evidence of such a link because there is none. We have said repeatedly that there has never, at any point, been any contact between BP and the Scottish Government in relation to Al-Megrahi. The statements we have made on this issue are entirely clear and consistent.

It was with concern that I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30th July by citing a letter from Conservative Party peer Lord Trefgarne, the chair of the Libyan British Business Council, to Justice Secretary MacAskill last year. This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year, including many from the USA. You have this letter because the Scottish Government published this last year as part of our comprehensive issue of documentation related to the decision. That being the case, you must also have seen the reply from Mr MacAskill, also published, which stated that his decisions would be "based on judicial grounds alone and economic and political considerations have no part in the process". In order to avoid any suggestion of misrepresentation, I trust that you will include that fact in future references.

BP's admitted lobbying on this issue referred to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) and with the UK Government. As you must by now be aware, the Scottish Government opposed this agreement from its inception, a position that we have maintained publicly and privately since. Indeed, I revealed the existence of the proposed PTA to the Scottish Parliament in a statement on 7 June 2007. It is perhaps to be regretted that our warnings about the circumstances in which this agreement came into being found no response at that time from the UK Government, the then opposition in the UK Parliament, or indeed from the United States Senate.

Finally, you and some of your Senatorial colleagues, have suggested that the Scottish Government have sought to pass responsibility to others for the release of Al-Megrahi. That is simply not the case. Secretary MacAskill took the decision following the precepts and due process of Scots law and jurisdiction - the same jurisdiction which over a period of some 20 years led Scotland to play the leading role in investigating, trying, convicting and incarcerating Al-Megrahi. We do not resile from our responsibility in making that decision.

The point we make is a different but a quite simple one. Please do not ascribe to the Scottish Government economic or commercial motives for this decision when there is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim.

If you wish to investigate commercial or indeed other motivations surrounding this case, then call the former UK Ministers and Prime Ministers who were involved in proposing, negotiating and then signing the PTA and, of course, where there is a public record of admission that business and trade, along with other issues, were factors. In this light your decision not to proceed with the draft invitation to offer evidence to former Prime Minister Blair, who actually signed the proposed PTA in May 2007, seems puzzling.

These people, of course, may have had, and indeed in some cases have conceded, motivations other than justice considerations. However, they did not take the decision on Mr Megrahi.

I am copying this letter to Senator Kerry.

Salmond's latest letter to Menendez

[What follows is the text of a press release just issued by the Scottish Government.]

First Minister Alex Salmond has today replied to the letter from Senator Menendez of July 29.

This follows the First Minister's previous letter to Senator Menendez on July 26, which answered five detailed questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also provided copies of documents.

The First Minister has also previously written to Senator John Kerry on July 21, providing comprehensive information and assistance ahead of the planned hearing which was later postponed. Senator Kerry described this correspondence as "thoughtful and thorough".

The letter is copied below:

Dear Senator Menendez

Thank you for your letter of 29 July.

I have made clear in my letters to you and to Senator Kerry that the Scottish Government's decision to decline your previous invitation for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Dr Fraser to attend a hearing in the US was based on principle rather than on any issue of practicality.

The most appropriate way for us to assist the Foreign Relations Committee is to provide a statement of the position of the Scottish Government, as I have done, and to answer any questions that the Committee may have in writing, as we have also done.

Scottish Ministers and public officials are properly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to other legislatures. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which serving members of the US Government would agree to appear as witnesses in hearings or inquiries held by the legislature of another country, and there are many high-profile and indeed current examples of the US Government declining such invitations.

Your letter again seeks to link BP with the decision made by the Scottish Government to grant Mr Al-Megrahi compassionate release. No-one has produced any evidence of such a link because there is none. We have said repeatedly that there has never, at any point, been any contact between BP and the Scottish Government in relation to Al-Megrahi. The statements we have made on this issue are entirely clear and consistent.

It was with concern that I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30th July by citing a letter from Conservative Party peer Lord Trefgarne, the chair of the Libyan British Business Council, to Justice Secretary MacAskill last year. This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year, including many from the USA. You have this letter because the Scottish Government published this last year as part of our comprehensive issue of documentation related to the decision. That being the case, you must also have seen the reply from Mr MacAskill, also published, which stated that his decisions would be "based on judicial grounds alone and economic and political considerations have no part in the process". In order to avoid any suggestion of misrepresentation, I trust that you will include that fact in future references.

BP's admitted lobbying on this issue referred to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) and with the UK Government. As you must by now be aware, the Scottish Government opposed this agreement from its inception, a position that we have maintained publicly and privately since. Indeed, I revealed the existence of the proposed PTA to the Scottish Parliament in a statement on 7 June 2007. It is perhaps to be regretted that our warnings about the circumstances in which this agreement came into being found no response at that time from the UK Government, the then opposition in the UK Parliament, or indeed from the United States Senate.

Finally, you and some of your Senatorial colleagues, have suggested that the Scottish Government have sought to pass responsibility to others for the release of Al-Megrahi. That is simply not the case. Secretary MacAskill took the decision following the precepts and due process of Scots law and jurisdiction - the same jurisdiction which over a period of some 20 years led Scotland to play the leading role in investigating, trying, convicting and incarcerating Al-Megrahi. We do not resile from our responsibility in making that decision.

The point we make is a different but a quite simple one. Please do not ascribe to the Scottish Government economic or commercial motives for this decision when there is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim.

If you wish to investigate commercial or indeed other motivations surrounding this case, then call the former UK Ministers and Prime Ministers who were involved in proposing, negotiating and then signing the PTA and, of course, where there is a public record of admission that business and trade, along with other issues, were factors. In this light your decision not to proceed with the draft invitation to offer evidence to former Prime Minister Blair, who actually signed the proposed PTA in May 2007, seems puzzling.

These people, of course, may have had, and indeed in some cases have conceded, motivations other than justice considerations. However, they did not take the decision on Mr Megrahi.

I am copying this letter to Senator Kerry.

Alex Salmond

[The following are excerpts from a related report on the BBC News website.]

Meanwhile Mr Menendez announced an "investigative phase" to the inquiry.

During a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mr Menendez and fellow New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg also released the first in a series of letters to the Scottish government requesting new information.

And they said requests to interview "key individuals", potentially outside of the US, would be made. (...)

Mr Menendez and Mr Lautenberg have pledged to carry out a thorough review of all documents already made public by the UK and Scottish governments, and all documents newly released to them by the UK government.

The senators said they would also make requests for specific additional documents from sources potentially including the UK, Scottish, Libyan and US governments, as well as BP.

In a fresh letter to Mr Salmond, they wrote: "One of your stated reasons for not participating in our hearing process is that you judge that the inquiry by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee was sufficient.

"In reviewing the documents available from your inquiry in the absence of direct testimony, it seems that the inquiry was quite limited, which leads me to the first series of questions we would appreciate your help in answering."

[An Agence France Presse news agency report on the senators' press conference and letter can be read here.]