Showing posts sorted by date for query Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Monday 27 September 2010
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.
Tuesday 14 September 2010
Justice officials to meet US senate team over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
Monday 13 September 2010
First Minister's letter to US Senators
[What follows is the text of the First Minister's most recent letter to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand and Schumer.]
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Sunday 12 September 2010
Alex Salmond accuses US Lockerbie bomber inquiry of lacking credibility
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Friday 10 September 2010
US ambassador hits back at cardinal over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
Tuesday 31 August 2010
BP boss again rejects US Senate request to appear at Lockerbie hearing
[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Tripoli Post, Libya's English language daily newspaper. It reads in part:]
The outgoing chief executive of BP has refused US officials' requests to appear at a hearing next month over the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
Tony Hayward told Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, in a letter that he is focusing on ensuring a smooth transition of leadership at the company and will be unable to testify.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is looking into whether the British-based oil company had sought Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's release to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In the letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Mr Hayward noted that UK and Scottish officials said they found no evidence that BP played a role in Al Megrahi's release.
He said BP has nothing to add to those statements. (...)
Al-Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, unfairly served twelve year of a life sentence as a result of miscarriage of justice when a Scottish make-shift court unjustly accused him of involvement in the Dec 21, 1988, bombing, which killed all 259 people on board, most of them Americans, and 11 people on the ground.
In August of last year, Scotland's government released the cancer-stricken man on compassionate grounds and he returned to Libya.
For reasons unclear yet the US Senate is putting much pressure on Britain and Scotland, and with no respect to this state's sovereignty, as to persecute [sic] their former and current officials who may have any relation with the release of the Libyan man from prison.
The outgoing chief executive of BP has refused US officials' requests to appear at a hearing next month over the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
Tony Hayward told Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, in a letter that he is focusing on ensuring a smooth transition of leadership at the company and will be unable to testify.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is looking into whether the British-based oil company had sought Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's release to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In the letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Mr Hayward noted that UK and Scottish officials said they found no evidence that BP played a role in Al Megrahi's release.
He said BP has nothing to add to those statements. (...)
Al-Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, unfairly served twelve year of a life sentence as a result of miscarriage of justice when a Scottish make-shift court unjustly accused him of involvement in the Dec 21, 1988, bombing, which killed all 259 people on board, most of them Americans, and 11 people on the ground.
In August of last year, Scotland's government released the cancer-stricken man on compassionate grounds and he returned to Libya.
For reasons unclear yet the US Senate is putting much pressure on Britain and Scotland, and with no respect to this state's sovereignty, as to persecute [sic] their former and current officials who may have any relation with the release of the Libyan man from prison.
Sunday 22 August 2010
Megrahi's conviction "entirely unsustainable"
The White House has told Scottish Ministers that they should return the Lockerbie bomber to jail in Scotland, amid fresh calls for a full public inquiry into his conviction and subsequent release.
John Brennan, counter-terrorism adviser to President Barack Obama, said Washington had expressed "strong conviction" to officials in Edinburgh over what he described as the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to free Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
But campaigners who believe in Megrahi's innocence are now arguing that the backlash over his freeing should not obscure more fundamental questions surrounding his conviction.
It came as it emerged that the Egyptian-born terrorist Mohammed Abu Talb - the man many suspect as the real figure behind the bomb - was released from jail in Sweden.
Michael Mansfield QC, one of the country's best-known defence lawyers, said a full judicial inquiry was required to settle the doubts over the case. Mansfield said he had no doubt that the evidence given to secure Megrahi's conviction was "entirely unsustainable".
[From a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday.
The same newspaper runs an opinion piece by Kenny Farquharson headlined "Scotland itself is in the dock" arguing that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice should go to Washington to testify on the compassionate release decision before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As is so often the case with Scotsman publications these days, the readers' comments are much more interesting than the article.]
John Brennan, counter-terrorism adviser to President Barack Obama, said Washington had expressed "strong conviction" to officials in Edinburgh over what he described as the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to free Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
But campaigners who believe in Megrahi's innocence are now arguing that the backlash over his freeing should not obscure more fundamental questions surrounding his conviction.
It came as it emerged that the Egyptian-born terrorist Mohammed Abu Talb - the man many suspect as the real figure behind the bomb - was released from jail in Sweden.
Michael Mansfield QC, one of the country's best-known defence lawyers, said a full judicial inquiry was required to settle the doubts over the case. Mansfield said he had no doubt that the evidence given to secure Megrahi's conviction was "entirely unsustainable".
[From a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday.
The same newspaper runs an opinion piece by Kenny Farquharson headlined "Scotland itself is in the dock" arguing that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice should go to Washington to testify on the compassionate release decision before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As is so often the case with Scotsman publications these days, the readers' comments are much more interesting than the article.]
Monday 16 August 2010
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.]
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.]
Wednesday 11 August 2010
Alex Salmond will not publish Lockerbie bomber medical records
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Guardian website. The following are extracts:]
Alex Salmond is to reject renewed calls from a group of US senators to publish the full medical records of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The first minister's officials are writing a "courteous" letter to the four Democrat senators turning down their requests to disclose Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's private medical reports, with the names and expertise of his doctors, and to ask the Libyan for permission to release the papers. (...)
Salmond officials will tell the four senators that the only published statement on al-Megrahi's illness, written by Andrew Fraser, director of health with the Scottish prison service and released last year, is the definitive medical report.
They believe medical notes written by his doctors and specialists should remain private as they belong to him as the patient. It is understood that al-Megrahi would also refuse that request.
Scottish government officials privately believe the four senators are exploiting the issue for domestic political reasons: Gillibrand and Schumer are fighting for reelection in November.
Sources in Edinburgh point out their demands have not been supported by the Senate's foreign relations committee, which first began an inquiry into allegations that BP influenced al-Megrahi's release. Of the four, only Menendez and Gillibrand are committee members.
But the senator's demands were supported by the Scottish Labour party and Scottish Tories, who repeated their requests for the full disclosure of all the medical evidence.
James Kelly, Labour's community safety spokesman and the brother of al-Megrahi's Scottish lawyer, Tony Kelly, said MacAskill should have nothing to hide. "The Scottish government keep talking about the array of doctors that were spoken to but no one knows what they actually said," Kelly said.
"It's time for full transparency and anything less that full disclosure smacks of cover-up."
Tony Kelly would not comment on his client's views.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said: "Every day that the SNP refuses to publish their evidence, suspicions only grow that the prison doctor's opinion was not supported by the cancer experts. Until we see that evidence, we do not know."
[James Kelly and Annabel Goldie should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But they are, of course, respectively, Labour and Tory politicians so perhaps no better can be expected. It is to be hoped that the First Minister in his letter to the senators does not overdo the courtesy.]
Alex Salmond is to reject renewed calls from a group of US senators to publish the full medical records of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The first minister's officials are writing a "courteous" letter to the four Democrat senators turning down their requests to disclose Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's private medical reports, with the names and expertise of his doctors, and to ask the Libyan for permission to release the papers. (...)
Salmond officials will tell the four senators that the only published statement on al-Megrahi's illness, written by Andrew Fraser, director of health with the Scottish prison service and released last year, is the definitive medical report.
They believe medical notes written by his doctors and specialists should remain private as they belong to him as the patient. It is understood that al-Megrahi would also refuse that request.
Scottish government officials privately believe the four senators are exploiting the issue for domestic political reasons: Gillibrand and Schumer are fighting for reelection in November.
Sources in Edinburgh point out their demands have not been supported by the Senate's foreign relations committee, which first began an inquiry into allegations that BP influenced al-Megrahi's release. Of the four, only Menendez and Gillibrand are committee members.
But the senator's demands were supported by the Scottish Labour party and Scottish Tories, who repeated their requests for the full disclosure of all the medical evidence.
James Kelly, Labour's community safety spokesman and the brother of al-Megrahi's Scottish lawyer, Tony Kelly, said MacAskill should have nothing to hide. "The Scottish government keep talking about the array of doctors that were spoken to but no one knows what they actually said," Kelly said.
"It's time for full transparency and anything less that full disclosure smacks of cover-up."
Tony Kelly would not comment on his client's views.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said: "Every day that the SNP refuses to publish their evidence, suspicions only grow that the prison doctor's opinion was not supported by the cancer experts. Until we see that evidence, we do not know."
[James Kelly and Annabel Goldie should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But they are, of course, respectively, Labour and Tory politicians so perhaps no better can be expected. It is to be hoped that the First Minister in his letter to the senators does not overdo the courtesy.]
Thursday 5 August 2010
Why the US Senate should question Tony Blair
[This is the headline over an article by Mark Seddon, the former United Nations Correspondent and New York Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera English TV, on the Left Futures website. It reads in part:]
Silence speaks volume. In the unmitigated disaster that is the Gulf of Mexico, two silent partners watch as BP endures a hurricane of criticism, Transocean and Haliburton, who it has been alleged are at least as complicit over the oil spill as the company that has been re-born in sections of the US media as “British Petroleum”. (...)
Just because big business and Government frequently fuse and lobby in such a way all of the time, and just because ‘Big Oil’ has such political and economic power, does not mean that Senator Menendez is wrong to try and pursue answers. Far from it. And just because the British lawmakers he wants to invite in front of his Committee have not taken up his offer, doesn’t mean that his Committee should allow itself to get side-lined. In truth it is difficult to see US lawmakers agree to fly to London to be quizzed by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, just as it is for British and Scottish lawmakers to break all conventions and appear in front of a foreign legislature. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are supplicants.
However, there is nothing stopping Senator Menendez and others coming to London and Edinburgh to find out for themselves what really want on behind the scenes in the run up to the signing of al-Megrahi’s release, they might discover that the whole affair is a good deal murkier than even they imagine.
I interviewed al-Megrahi in Tripoli at a time when the Libyans were refusing to extradite him, and while Libya’s pedigree in backing terrorist outrages was not in doubt. I remember then thinking that something did not quite seem right, and wondering if al-Megrahi – the only man to be convicted for the downing of the Pan Am flight – was being set-up as some kind of scapegoat. A body of evidence amassed in the years since, not least by the now sadly deceased investigative journalist, Paul Foot, does indeed reach the conclusion that al-Megrahi was the scapegoat. The Senator and his team only need visit the offices of Private Eye magazine in Soho, London, and they can see the evidence for themselves. It is also worthy of note that many of the British families who lost family in the Lockerbie bombing also happen to agree that al-Megrahi could be innocent.
That then is one angle. But here is another. In recent days we have seen and heard much from the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, easily the most erudite and informed politician in these islands, a visible reminder of the calibre of politician we have lost. Senator Menendez certainly needs to meet Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, where he will discover I suspect that the Scottish authorities played the release of al-Megrahi by the book. I may of course be wrong, but somehow I do not see that Salmond in particular would have been swayed by lobbying by BP, still less by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In fact Salmond is adamant that, when it came to the Scottish Parliament, there was no lobbying by BP at all.
And so to the other silent voice, the loudest silence of all, from the man who was the architect of the rapprochement with Libya, the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Blair’s ties to BP were so close that the company was at one time nicknamed as ‘Blair Petroleum’. A revolving door existed between Number 10 Downing Street and BP’s head office, and while there is a good argument to suggest that Blair was right to want to lift relations with Libya out of deep freeze, it is probably time to ask exactly why.
Was it because Britain, a perennial target for Libyan inspired terrorist attacks, or Libyan financed terrorist attacks, genuinely wanted to turn over a new leaf with the unpredictable Libyan strongman, Colonel Gadaffi , or was the prospect of black gold too tempting a prospect? Or was it, more likely, a combination of the two?
Big companies such as BP have incredible clout, yet it takes Governments to legislate and Governments to agree prisoner transfer agreements. It takes Governments to revive trade and diplomatic ties. It therefore follows that Governments can if they wish resist the pressure and refuse to legislate or revive diplomatic ties. But when it came to Libya, still ruled by a despot who had never even apologised for the State sponsored financing of terrorism and whose agents shot Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in cold blood outside the Libyan Embassy in London, Tony Blair’s Government wanted to re-open economic ties.
If Senator Menendez wants to get to the bottom of this whole sorry affair he could do no better than inviting Tony Blair to testify on Capitol Hill. After all, Blair has close links with both BP and the Libyan authorities, and is no longer a Parliamentarian but a private citizen. Why should he refuse to go?
Silence speaks volume. In the unmitigated disaster that is the Gulf of Mexico, two silent partners watch as BP endures a hurricane of criticism, Transocean and Haliburton, who it has been alleged are at least as complicit over the oil spill as the company that has been re-born in sections of the US media as “British Petroleum”. (...)
Just because big business and Government frequently fuse and lobby in such a way all of the time, and just because ‘Big Oil’ has such political and economic power, does not mean that Senator Menendez is wrong to try and pursue answers. Far from it. And just because the British lawmakers he wants to invite in front of his Committee have not taken up his offer, doesn’t mean that his Committee should allow itself to get side-lined. In truth it is difficult to see US lawmakers agree to fly to London to be quizzed by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, just as it is for British and Scottish lawmakers to break all conventions and appear in front of a foreign legislature. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are supplicants.
However, there is nothing stopping Senator Menendez and others coming to London and Edinburgh to find out for themselves what really want on behind the scenes in the run up to the signing of al-Megrahi’s release, they might discover that the whole affair is a good deal murkier than even they imagine.
I interviewed al-Megrahi in Tripoli at a time when the Libyans were refusing to extradite him, and while Libya’s pedigree in backing terrorist outrages was not in doubt. I remember then thinking that something did not quite seem right, and wondering if al-Megrahi – the only man to be convicted for the downing of the Pan Am flight – was being set-up as some kind of scapegoat. A body of evidence amassed in the years since, not least by the now sadly deceased investigative journalist, Paul Foot, does indeed reach the conclusion that al-Megrahi was the scapegoat. The Senator and his team only need visit the offices of Private Eye magazine in Soho, London, and they can see the evidence for themselves. It is also worthy of note that many of the British families who lost family in the Lockerbie bombing also happen to agree that al-Megrahi could be innocent.
That then is one angle. But here is another. In recent days we have seen and heard much from the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, easily the most erudite and informed politician in these islands, a visible reminder of the calibre of politician we have lost. Senator Menendez certainly needs to meet Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, where he will discover I suspect that the Scottish authorities played the release of al-Megrahi by the book. I may of course be wrong, but somehow I do not see that Salmond in particular would have been swayed by lobbying by BP, still less by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In fact Salmond is adamant that, when it came to the Scottish Parliament, there was no lobbying by BP at all.
And so to the other silent voice, the loudest silence of all, from the man who was the architect of the rapprochement with Libya, the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Blair’s ties to BP were so close that the company was at one time nicknamed as ‘Blair Petroleum’. A revolving door existed between Number 10 Downing Street and BP’s head office, and while there is a good argument to suggest that Blair was right to want to lift relations with Libya out of deep freeze, it is probably time to ask exactly why.
Was it because Britain, a perennial target for Libyan inspired terrorist attacks, or Libyan financed terrorist attacks, genuinely wanted to turn over a new leaf with the unpredictable Libyan strongman, Colonel Gadaffi , or was the prospect of black gold too tempting a prospect? Or was it, more likely, a combination of the two?
Big companies such as BP have incredible clout, yet it takes Governments to legislate and Governments to agree prisoner transfer agreements. It takes Governments to revive trade and diplomatic ties. It therefore follows that Governments can if they wish resist the pressure and refuse to legislate or revive diplomatic ties. But when it came to Libya, still ruled by a despot who had never even apologised for the State sponsored financing of terrorism and whose agents shot Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in cold blood outside the Libyan Embassy in London, Tony Blair’s Government wanted to re-open economic ties.
If Senator Menendez wants to get to the bottom of this whole sorry affair he could do no better than inviting Tony Blair to testify on Capitol Hill. After all, Blair has close links with both BP and the Libyan authorities, and is no longer a Parliamentarian but a private citizen. Why should he refuse to go?
Wednesday 4 August 2010
Rottweiler Alex is right to stand up to American bullies
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Press and Journal by columnist Nicola Barry. It reads in part:]
You have to hand it to Alex Salmond. Yes, OK, at times the first minister can be loud, irritating, bumptious even, but, when the knives are out and the going gets tough, he is never afraid to stick his head above the parapet.
Scotland’s first minister has delivered a right royal raspberry to the US over the al Megrahi and BP affair. Not before time. Instead of skulking around, furiously passing the buck like many of his colleagues, Mr Salmond has said “no” to America.
No, we will not obey. No, the justice secretary will not go to America for a grilling in front of a Senate committee. Neither will Alex Salmond. There will be no grilled Salmond on the menu.
Now, had it been Tony Blair, our former prime minister, things would have been different. Mr Blair would have been at Heathrow Airport, in an instant, tail wagging furiously, on his way to Washington. Not for nothing was old Tone known as Bush’s poodle.
Alex Salmond is no one’s poodle. Rottweiler, maybe, but never a poodle. (...)
When a small country such as Scotland, with a remit as big as the al Megrahi decision, made a compassionate choice, America chose to vilify us.
In all the criticisms of the Scottish Government over the Megrahi decision, none of the American politicians has so much as mentioned the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Why not? Because the truth does not interest them.
The wonderful Mr Salmond said there was no way the Senate foreign relations committee would be allowed to hold hearings or interview ministers in either London or Edinburgh, as it was unconstitutional and unprecedented.
He also said that the Scottish and UK governments had already answered the committee's questions by letter and supplied all the relevant documents related to al Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. (...)
I doubt we will ever know the ins and outs of Tony Blair’s deal with Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi in the desert, back in 2004, but the fallout from that meeting lingers on into this present crisis.
Scotland, a small country, has been singled out by the US so that certain politicians over there can flex their muscles at our expense. This has gone on for some time now.
Kenny MacAskill showed a great deal of integrity by refusing to buckle under intense international pressure. He made a difficult, controversial decision off his own bat. And, by the way, the fact that an unruly bunch of Saltire-waving Libyans greeted al Megrahi on his return home has nothing to do with the Scottish Government. Also, it has to be said that the justice secretary proved Scotland was very capable of independence, because we made our own decision in the devolved area of criminal justice, and stuck to our guns.
Therefore, I respect Alex Salmond, our occasionally pugnacious first minister, for getting on his high horse and telling the US Senate that he will not be dispatching members of his government to Washington to be grilled by senators who, let’s be honest, sense there is blood in the water.
[In The Herald a letter from Jo Greenhorn headed "Leaders should be vociferous in condemning American interference in our sovereign affairs" reads as follows:]
For how much longer will the parliaments at Westminster and Holyrood tolerate interference in British and Scottish affairs by the United States?
When will we hear public condemnation of recent US behaviour from every single party leader at Westminster, including the Prime Minister, and from all opposition leaders at Holyrood? It really is time the gloves came off.
The US has now crossed many lines in what we know is nothing more than a blatant attempt by four insignificant politicians there to use the recent oil spill, and the involvement of BP in that matter, to rustle up some votes ahead of their elections later this year.
They are now breaching not only diplomatic protocol but sailing dangerously close to disregarding the right of every sovereign country, under UN regulations, to manage its own business. What next? Will they invade?
The Herald is to be congratulated for supporting the approach taken by Alex Salmond in dealing with the increasingly bizarre behaviour of the US in a recent powerful editorial on the subject.
It is a pity Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott would not do the same, regardless of their feelings about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last year. This is no time for party politics, and their silence is something all Scots should view with alarm. Ultimately, they should condemn outright what the US is doing by openly interfering in British and Scottish business. They should also be supporting calls from The Herald and elsewhere for a full investigation into Lockerbie.
If the Americans want an inquiry, let’s give them one, but let’s make it worthwhile. Let’s investigate Lockerbie from start to finish, including the public doubts expressed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding Megrahi’s original trial and conviction. Megrahi’s appeal may be gone but the findings of the SCCRC are still on record and they will not go away.
You have to hand it to Alex Salmond. Yes, OK, at times the first minister can be loud, irritating, bumptious even, but, when the knives are out and the going gets tough, he is never afraid to stick his head above the parapet.
Scotland’s first minister has delivered a right royal raspberry to the US over the al Megrahi and BP affair. Not before time. Instead of skulking around, furiously passing the buck like many of his colleagues, Mr Salmond has said “no” to America.
No, we will not obey. No, the justice secretary will not go to America for a grilling in front of a Senate committee. Neither will Alex Salmond. There will be no grilled Salmond on the menu.
Now, had it been Tony Blair, our former prime minister, things would have been different. Mr Blair would have been at Heathrow Airport, in an instant, tail wagging furiously, on his way to Washington. Not for nothing was old Tone known as Bush’s poodle.
Alex Salmond is no one’s poodle. Rottweiler, maybe, but never a poodle. (...)
When a small country such as Scotland, with a remit as big as the al Megrahi decision, made a compassionate choice, America chose to vilify us.
In all the criticisms of the Scottish Government over the Megrahi decision, none of the American politicians has so much as mentioned the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Why not? Because the truth does not interest them.
The wonderful Mr Salmond said there was no way the Senate foreign relations committee would be allowed to hold hearings or interview ministers in either London or Edinburgh, as it was unconstitutional and unprecedented.
He also said that the Scottish and UK governments had already answered the committee's questions by letter and supplied all the relevant documents related to al Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. (...)
I doubt we will ever know the ins and outs of Tony Blair’s deal with Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi in the desert, back in 2004, but the fallout from that meeting lingers on into this present crisis.
Scotland, a small country, has been singled out by the US so that certain politicians over there can flex their muscles at our expense. This has gone on for some time now.
Kenny MacAskill showed a great deal of integrity by refusing to buckle under intense international pressure. He made a difficult, controversial decision off his own bat. And, by the way, the fact that an unruly bunch of Saltire-waving Libyans greeted al Megrahi on his return home has nothing to do with the Scottish Government. Also, it has to be said that the justice secretary proved Scotland was very capable of independence, because we made our own decision in the devolved area of criminal justice, and stuck to our guns.
Therefore, I respect Alex Salmond, our occasionally pugnacious first minister, for getting on his high horse and telling the US Senate that he will not be dispatching members of his government to Washington to be grilled by senators who, let’s be honest, sense there is blood in the water.
[In The Herald a letter from Jo Greenhorn headed "Leaders should be vociferous in condemning American interference in our sovereign affairs" reads as follows:]
For how much longer will the parliaments at Westminster and Holyrood tolerate interference in British and Scottish affairs by the United States?
When will we hear public condemnation of recent US behaviour from every single party leader at Westminster, including the Prime Minister, and from all opposition leaders at Holyrood? It really is time the gloves came off.
The US has now crossed many lines in what we know is nothing more than a blatant attempt by four insignificant politicians there to use the recent oil spill, and the involvement of BP in that matter, to rustle up some votes ahead of their elections later this year.
They are now breaching not only diplomatic protocol but sailing dangerously close to disregarding the right of every sovereign country, under UN regulations, to manage its own business. What next? Will they invade?
The Herald is to be congratulated for supporting the approach taken by Alex Salmond in dealing with the increasingly bizarre behaviour of the US in a recent powerful editorial on the subject.
It is a pity Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott would not do the same, regardless of their feelings about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last year. This is no time for party politics, and their silence is something all Scots should view with alarm. Ultimately, they should condemn outright what the US is doing by openly interfering in British and Scottish business. They should also be supporting calls from The Herald and elsewhere for a full investigation into Lockerbie.
If the Americans want an inquiry, let’s give them one, but let’s make it worthwhile. Let’s investigate Lockerbie from start to finish, including the public doubts expressed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding Megrahi’s original trial and conviction. Megrahi’s appeal may be gone but the findings of the SCCRC are still on record and they will not go away.
Monday 2 August 2010
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.]
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.]
Sunday 1 August 2010
Doubt, guilt and Megrahi
[This is the heading over a letter from Martin Allen in today's edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]
It used to be the case that, to secure a conviction, it had to be shown “beyond reasonable doubt” that the accused had committed the crime (Lockerbie: now pressure switches to America, News, July 25). Now it seems that when a crime has been committed, justice is served if a guilty verdict is served on the person who seems most likely to have committed it, regardless of such holes as there may be in the prosecution’s case.
In the case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi there are such holes. His defence team were denied access to alleged key evidence, and the veracity of a key witness for the prosecution is thrown into doubt by evidence suggesting they were offered huge rewards by overseas organisations to testify.
Megrahi’s abandonment of his appeal cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, given the likelihood of his belief that to continue with it would prevent a compassionate release. His case is one in which a not proven verdict would have been appropriate. Since the Camp Zeist verdict cannot be changed except by a further court hearing, it would be appropriate if those legal experts who have reason to doubt his guilt were to sign a letter to that effect, addressed to the governments of Scotland, the UK, the US and Libya.
[An interesting suggestion. But I fear that such a letter would be pointless: the four governments mentioned just want the whole Lockerbie affair to go away. The only thing that will cause the first two to change their attitude is (a) extreme public and media pressure or (b) legal action that compels them to do so.
A letter from Kevin Donnelly in Scotland on Sunday reads:]
Scotland's reputation has again been dragged through the mud on a world stage, this time by a combination of US politicians seeking to boost their home popularity ahead of elections, a British Prime Minister keen to protect the reputation of oil giant BP, and some home politicians opposed to the SNP on any issue.
It was wrong and profoundly misguided of the four senators to use the world's media to summon Scotland's First Minister and justice secretary to account before its foreign affairs committee. It also displays a misunderstanding of the Scottish Government's role and limited powers under devolution.
The problem for the senators is that no one with half a brain believes the Scottish Government had any involvement with oil deals in the desert.
The fact remains that Kenny MacAskill rejected the Prisoner Transfer request (the basis of the oil deal claims), but was bound by precedent set by previous Scottish Governments and Scottish Office ministers to release al Megrahi on compassionate grounds - it's that simple.
While Scotland can be proud that First Minister Alex Salmond and his justice secretary were diplomatic but firm in their responses to the US Senate committee, we have witnessed the appalling spectacle of a UK prime minister, foreign secretary and ambassador in Washington falling over themselves in a clumsy effort to rubbish Scotland and defend BP.
It must now be a profound question for everyone in Scottish society whether Scottish foreign relations are best served by a UK Government, which has set itself so clearly and fundamentally against Scottish interests abroad.
It used to be the case that, to secure a conviction, it had to be shown “beyond reasonable doubt” that the accused had committed the crime (Lockerbie: now pressure switches to America, News, July 25). Now it seems that when a crime has been committed, justice is served if a guilty verdict is served on the person who seems most likely to have committed it, regardless of such holes as there may be in the prosecution’s case.
In the case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi there are such holes. His defence team were denied access to alleged key evidence, and the veracity of a key witness for the prosecution is thrown into doubt by evidence suggesting they were offered huge rewards by overseas organisations to testify.
Megrahi’s abandonment of his appeal cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, given the likelihood of his belief that to continue with it would prevent a compassionate release. His case is one in which a not proven verdict would have been appropriate. Since the Camp Zeist verdict cannot be changed except by a further court hearing, it would be appropriate if those legal experts who have reason to doubt his guilt were to sign a letter to that effect, addressed to the governments of Scotland, the UK, the US and Libya.
[An interesting suggestion. But I fear that such a letter would be pointless: the four governments mentioned just want the whole Lockerbie affair to go away. The only thing that will cause the first two to change their attitude is (a) extreme public and media pressure or (b) legal action that compels them to do so.
A letter from Kevin Donnelly in Scotland on Sunday reads:]
Scotland's reputation has again been dragged through the mud on a world stage, this time by a combination of US politicians seeking to boost their home popularity ahead of elections, a British Prime Minister keen to protect the reputation of oil giant BP, and some home politicians opposed to the SNP on any issue.
It was wrong and profoundly misguided of the four senators to use the world's media to summon Scotland's First Minister and justice secretary to account before its foreign affairs committee. It also displays a misunderstanding of the Scottish Government's role and limited powers under devolution.
The problem for the senators is that no one with half a brain believes the Scottish Government had any involvement with oil deals in the desert.
The fact remains that Kenny MacAskill rejected the Prisoner Transfer request (the basis of the oil deal claims), but was bound by precedent set by previous Scottish Governments and Scottish Office ministers to release al Megrahi on compassionate grounds - it's that simple.
While Scotland can be proud that First Minister Alex Salmond and his justice secretary were diplomatic but firm in their responses to the US Senate committee, we have witnessed the appalling spectacle of a UK prime minister, foreign secretary and ambassador in Washington falling over themselves in a clumsy effort to rubbish Scotland and defend BP.
It must now be a profound question for everyone in Scottish society whether Scottish foreign relations are best served by a UK Government, which has set itself so clearly and fundamentally against Scottish interests abroad.
Friday 30 July 2010
BBC presenter 'speaking nonsense’ over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report published this morning on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads in part:]
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has dismissed as “nonsense” a claim by BBC Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler ...
Mr Salmond was appearing on the UK Newsnight programme in order to address attacks from US Senator Robert Menendez. Mr Menendez is one of four senators whose letter to the UK ambassador resulted in the setting up of a Senate Committee hearing into the circumstances leading up to the release.
During the exchanges, broadcast live, Mr Esler appeared to claim that the release had harmed the chances of Scottish independence saying to Mr Salmond: “You would like an independent Scotland, you would like good relations with the United states particularly those 40 million or so who claim some kind of Scottish descent. This one case may have blown it”
Mr Salmond ridiculed the suggestion saying: “I think that’s just such nonsense Gavin, we have good relationships with the United States.”
Mr Salmond underlined the respect that the Scottish government has for all of the victims of Lockerbie who spanned 21 different nationalities. The FM included in that respect the surviving families who themselves were also victims and explained that there were some families in the US who actually agreed with the release.
When asked by Mr Esler whether the Scottish government would be prepared to ‘cooperate’ if senator Menendez were to come to Scotland the First Minister pointed out that the Scottish government were already cooperating where they could and highlighted the refusal of the US and UK administrations to release all documents relating to the case.
Mr Salmond promised that the senator would be extended the courtesy afforded all foreign representatives who visit and revealed that Kenny MacAskill had recently met with a dozen US Congressmen on the subject of Al Megrahi at the request of the American Consul General in Scotland.
However the First Minister made it clear that no Scottish Minister would be compelled to attend - and have judgement passed on them by - a committee controlled by another nation. Mr Salmond highlighted the United States refusal to attend inquiries into the ‘friendly fire’ deaths of UK servicemen, the ‘extraordinary rendition’ where people were spirited through UK airports by the CIA for torture and inquiries into Guantanamo bay.
Mr Esler suggested that US suspicions that the release was related to a BP oil deal were justified saying: “BP wanted drilling in Libya, Libya wanted Megrahi, You release Megrahi, BP gets drilling rights.”
Mr Esler added: “There was some lobbying by the LBBC of which BP is a part, you can understand why American senators, meaning no disrespect to the Scottish or British governments think there’s something deeply fishy about this”
This was addressed by Mr Salmond who explained that the lobbying on behalf of LBBC had been carried out by a Tory politician. The request had been rejected out of hand by Kenny MacAskill who had explained firmly to the Tory peer that business interests would play no part in the decision on Mr Megrahi.
The First Minister went on to suggest that if the senator was truly interested in Libyan oil deals negotiated on behalf of BP then the person to ask would be the man who was part of the negotiations - Tony Blair. Mr Salmond explained that the signing of the BP oil deal took place, not as the BBC presenter had suggested after the release of Mr Megrahi, but two years before on the same day that Tony Blair met with Libyan leader Col Gadaffi.
Mr Salmond also highlighted the silence from both the then Westminster opposition and indeed US senators when the SNP exposed Tony Blair’s secret ‘deal in the desert’.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has dismissed as “nonsense” a claim by BBC Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler ...
Mr Salmond was appearing on the UK Newsnight programme in order to address attacks from US Senator Robert Menendez. Mr Menendez is one of four senators whose letter to the UK ambassador resulted in the setting up of a Senate Committee hearing into the circumstances leading up to the release.
During the exchanges, broadcast live, Mr Esler appeared to claim that the release had harmed the chances of Scottish independence saying to Mr Salmond: “You would like an independent Scotland, you would like good relations with the United states particularly those 40 million or so who claim some kind of Scottish descent. This one case may have blown it”
Mr Salmond ridiculed the suggestion saying: “I think that’s just such nonsense Gavin, we have good relationships with the United States.”
Mr Salmond underlined the respect that the Scottish government has for all of the victims of Lockerbie who spanned 21 different nationalities. The FM included in that respect the surviving families who themselves were also victims and explained that there were some families in the US who actually agreed with the release.
When asked by Mr Esler whether the Scottish government would be prepared to ‘cooperate’ if senator Menendez were to come to Scotland the First Minister pointed out that the Scottish government were already cooperating where they could and highlighted the refusal of the US and UK administrations to release all documents relating to the case.
Mr Salmond promised that the senator would be extended the courtesy afforded all foreign representatives who visit and revealed that Kenny MacAskill had recently met with a dozen US Congressmen on the subject of Al Megrahi at the request of the American Consul General in Scotland.
However the First Minister made it clear that no Scottish Minister would be compelled to attend - and have judgement passed on them by - a committee controlled by another nation. Mr Salmond highlighted the United States refusal to attend inquiries into the ‘friendly fire’ deaths of UK servicemen, the ‘extraordinary rendition’ where people were spirited through UK airports by the CIA for torture and inquiries into Guantanamo bay.
Mr Esler suggested that US suspicions that the release was related to a BP oil deal were justified saying: “BP wanted drilling in Libya, Libya wanted Megrahi, You release Megrahi, BP gets drilling rights.”
Mr Esler added: “There was some lobbying by the LBBC of which BP is a part, you can understand why American senators, meaning no disrespect to the Scottish or British governments think there’s something deeply fishy about this”
This was addressed by Mr Salmond who explained that the lobbying on behalf of LBBC had been carried out by a Tory politician. The request had been rejected out of hand by Kenny MacAskill who had explained firmly to the Tory peer that business interests would play no part in the decision on Mr Megrahi.
The First Minister went on to suggest that if the senator was truly interested in Libyan oil deals negotiated on behalf of BP then the person to ask would be the man who was part of the negotiations - Tony Blair. Mr Salmond explained that the signing of the BP oil deal took place, not as the BBC presenter had suggested after the release of Mr Megrahi, but two years before on the same day that Tony Blair met with Libyan leader Col Gadaffi.
Mr Salmond also highlighted the silence from both the then Westminster opposition and indeed US senators when the SNP exposed Tony Blair’s secret ‘deal in the desert’.
Thursday 29 July 2010
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".]
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".]
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Menendez at work
[This is the heading over a post by Greg Milam on the American Pie blog on the Sky News website. It reads as follows:]
British diplomats in Washington are ‘surprised’ at the rant from US Senator Robert Menendez over his aborted hearing on the Lockerbie bomber.
They had no idea that Mr Menendez was going to give the UK both barrels for, in his eyes, helping to scupper the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting this week.
Maybe Mr Menendez feels a little foolish that he so heavily advertised a hearing before waiting for replies to his witness invitations.
But his announcement of the postponement came perilously close to accusing the UK and Scottish authorities of having something to hide.
Some here have labelled what the committee is investigating as a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Pointing the finger at BP is a pretty easy way of earning popularity in the US at the moment but the planned hearing seemed to cross a line.
Here is the evidence: Scotland says the Lockerbie bomber was freed on compassionate ground.
David Cameron (who even changed his schedule to meet Menendez’s team) says he’s seen nothing to suggest BP played any part in the release.
Both parties have co-operated with the committee and sent over a stack of documents.
For these reasons, it is not surprising that the invited witnesses didn’t fancy a few hours of haranguing from American politicians when the answers had already been provided.
It would set quite a precedent for one country’s legislature to feel it can investigate decisions taken by another.
What the committee, and many Americans, don’t seem to like is that BP was lobbying the UK government at all.
But people in glass houses… Many Americans don’t like the lobbying money bunged at senators to stop, for example, healthcare reform.
If they want a clampdown on lobbying, there are a few senators who would see a big black hole appear in their campaign funding.
They might not like BP very much at the moment – but should it really be one rule for one and another for everyone else?
[And the following is from a post by David Hughes, the chief leader writer of the Daily Telegraph, on a blog hosted by that newspaper.]
BP has hardly covered itself in glory over the Gulf oil spill and, as predicted last week, at least one head had to roll before the oil company could start to draw a line under the business. But the mood is changing fast, not only because the company has shown that it can carry the truly colossal cost of this disaster without going down the tubes. It also appears that the slick is vanishing far faster than thought. (...)
It is against this rather encouraging background that we should view the shameless political show-boating of the US Senate in trying to haul BP’s departing chief executive Tony Hayward to Washington (along with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Scotland’s Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill) to interrogate them on whether BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdulbaset al-Megrahi. Wisely, all three have told the Senate to take a running jump. There is something nauseating about this continued hounding of BP by American law-makers. They live in the most oil-dependent country on the planet yet seem obsessed with kicking the companies that have to do the dirty work of getting the black stuff into their gas-guzzlers.
BP has every right to lobby in defence of its commercial interests – are American senators saying it hasn’t? But it is the job of elected politicians – in this case the Scottish Executive – to take the decisions. Perhaps members of the Senate, so used to being manipulated by lobbyists, have lost sight of that distinction. Their attempt to make political mileage out of this should be treated with the contempt it deserves
British diplomats in Washington are ‘surprised’ at the rant from US Senator Robert Menendez over his aborted hearing on the Lockerbie bomber.
They had no idea that Mr Menendez was going to give the UK both barrels for, in his eyes, helping to scupper the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting this week.
Maybe Mr Menendez feels a little foolish that he so heavily advertised a hearing before waiting for replies to his witness invitations.
But his announcement of the postponement came perilously close to accusing the UK and Scottish authorities of having something to hide.
Some here have labelled what the committee is investigating as a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Pointing the finger at BP is a pretty easy way of earning popularity in the US at the moment but the planned hearing seemed to cross a line.
Here is the evidence: Scotland says the Lockerbie bomber was freed on compassionate ground.
David Cameron (who even changed his schedule to meet Menendez’s team) says he’s seen nothing to suggest BP played any part in the release.
Both parties have co-operated with the committee and sent over a stack of documents.
For these reasons, it is not surprising that the invited witnesses didn’t fancy a few hours of haranguing from American politicians when the answers had already been provided.
It would set quite a precedent for one country’s legislature to feel it can investigate decisions taken by another.
What the committee, and many Americans, don’t seem to like is that BP was lobbying the UK government at all.
But people in glass houses… Many Americans don’t like the lobbying money bunged at senators to stop, for example, healthcare reform.
If they want a clampdown on lobbying, there are a few senators who would see a big black hole appear in their campaign funding.
They might not like BP very much at the moment – but should it really be one rule for one and another for everyone else?
[And the following is from a post by David Hughes, the chief leader writer of the Daily Telegraph, on a blog hosted by that newspaper.]
BP has hardly covered itself in glory over the Gulf oil spill and, as predicted last week, at least one head had to roll before the oil company could start to draw a line under the business. But the mood is changing fast, not only because the company has shown that it can carry the truly colossal cost of this disaster without going down the tubes. It also appears that the slick is vanishing far faster than thought. (...)
It is against this rather encouraging background that we should view the shameless political show-boating of the US Senate in trying to haul BP’s departing chief executive Tony Hayward to Washington (along with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Scotland’s Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill) to interrogate them on whether BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdulbaset al-Megrahi. Wisely, all three have told the Senate to take a running jump. There is something nauseating about this continued hounding of BP by American law-makers. They live in the most oil-dependent country on the planet yet seem obsessed with kicking the companies that have to do the dirty work of getting the black stuff into their gas-guzzlers.
BP has every right to lobby in defence of its commercial interests – are American senators saying it hasn’t? But it is the job of elected politicians – in this case the Scottish Executive – to take the decisions. Perhaps members of the Senate, so used to being manipulated by lobbyists, have lost sight of that distinction. Their attempt to make political mileage out of this should be treated with the contempt it deserves
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.]
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.]
Tuesday 27 July 2010
BP says Hayward won't testify at hearing
BP has said that outgoing chief executive Tony Hayward will not testify at a US Senate hearing examining whether the British oil giant influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, the office of Senator Robert Menendez said on Tuesday. (...)
BP has offered to send another representative to testify at Thursday's hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be chaired by Menendez, an aide to the senator told Reuters, without giving the BP official's name.
[From a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website.
Perhaps Sen Menendez might learn some lessons or pick up some hints from "What if you threw a party and no-one came?"]
BP has offered to send another representative to testify at Thursday's hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be chaired by Menendez, an aide to the senator told Reuters, without giving the BP official's name.
[From a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website.
Perhaps Sen Menendez might learn some lessons or pick up some hints from "What if you threw a party and no-one came?"]
US declines to allow release of note of MacAskill-Holder phone call
The Obama administration has no plans to release any further correspondence with Scotland relating to the release of the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing.
“Nothing more needs to be released,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told CNSNews on Monday, after the department made public the text of a letter sent to Scottish ministers eight days before Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was freed and flown home to Libya.
Earlier, the Scottish government said there were two documents relating to last year’s correspondence between Scottish and US officials on Megrahi, which the US government had withheld permission for Edinburgh to release. (...)
The second document cited by Scotland was described as “our note of the conversation” between Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder. The two apparently spoke by telephone on June 26, 2009.
Ahead of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday, CNSNews asked Crowley whether that final, still-unreleased document would now be made available.
Crowley said there were multiple phone conversations “over a number of months” with Scottish officials relating to Megrahi, involving Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials.
He questioned how the US would be in a position to verify the authenticity of a Scottish description of a single conversation. “How can we agree on a Scottish account of a phone conversation between leaders?”
Crowley said that all phone conversations on the matter were consistent with the position laid out in the LeBaron letter – “that Megrahi should never leave Scotland.”
[The above are excerpts from a report just published on the CNS News website.]
“Nothing more needs to be released,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told CNSNews on Monday, after the department made public the text of a letter sent to Scottish ministers eight days before Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was freed and flown home to Libya.
Earlier, the Scottish government said there were two documents relating to last year’s correspondence between Scottish and US officials on Megrahi, which the US government had withheld permission for Edinburgh to release. (...)
The second document cited by Scotland was described as “our note of the conversation” between Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder. The two apparently spoke by telephone on June 26, 2009.
Ahead of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday, CNSNews asked Crowley whether that final, still-unreleased document would now be made available.
Crowley said there were multiple phone conversations “over a number of months” with Scottish officials relating to Megrahi, involving Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials.
He questioned how the US would be in a position to verify the authenticity of a Scottish description of a single conversation. “How can we agree on a Scottish account of a phone conversation between leaders?”
Crowley said that all phone conversations on the matter were consistent with the position laid out in the LeBaron letter – “that Megrahi should never leave Scotland.”
[The above are excerpts from a report just published on the CNS News website.]
Monday 26 July 2010
Senators want UK officials at Lockerbie hearing
[This is the headline over a report from Associated Press just published on the website of The Washington Post. It reads in part:]
British and Scottish officials who have declined to appear at a hearing this week on the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi should reconsider in order to dispel "a cloud of suspicion" over the issue, two US senators said Monday.
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Sen Robert Menendez of New Jersey, standing in Times Square along with relatives of some of those killed in the bombing, said it was important to get the facts surrounding the circumstances of al-Meghrahi's 2009 release. The senators are probing whether an oil exploration deal between oil giant BP and Libya influenced the decision. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a hearing scheduled for Thursday.
"The abundance of incredible coincidences surrounding al-Megrahi's release deserves a real open, transparent hearing," Menendez said Monday.
"A cloud of suspicion will hang over the entire issue at least until all the looming questions are answered," he added.
[Does anyone think for even an instant that "a real open, transparent hearing" could be obtained before a committee composed of these grandstanding clowns?]
British and Scottish officials who have declined to appear at a hearing this week on the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi should reconsider in order to dispel "a cloud of suspicion" over the issue, two US senators said Monday.
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Sen Robert Menendez of New Jersey, standing in Times Square along with relatives of some of those killed in the bombing, said it was important to get the facts surrounding the circumstances of al-Meghrahi's 2009 release. The senators are probing whether an oil exploration deal between oil giant BP and Libya influenced the decision. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a hearing scheduled for Thursday.
"The abundance of incredible coincidences surrounding al-Megrahi's release deserves a real open, transparent hearing," Menendez said Monday.
"A cloud of suspicion will hang over the entire issue at least until all the looming questions are answered," he added.
[Does anyone think for even an instant that "a real open, transparent hearing" could be obtained before a committee composed of these grandstanding clowns?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)