Showing posts sorted by date for query lautenberg. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query lautenberg. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Wednesday 12 June 2013
Odd obituary of US Senator Frank Lautenberg
Today's edition of The Herald contains an obituary of US Senator Frank Lautenberg, who died on 3 June. There is only one good reason that I can think of for a Scottish newspaper to run an obituary of this minor American politician: his rôle on the periphery of the Lockerbie case. But The Herald's obituary never mentions this!
Thursday 1 September 2011
US: No plans to tie Libya aid to Lockerbie case
[This is the headline over a report issued today by The Associated Press news agency. It reads in part:]
The Obama administration said Wednesday it will continue to press Libyan rebels to review the case of the convicted Lockerbie bomber but ruled out making the transfer of frozen Gadhafi regime assets contingent on his return to prison.
Getting the money to the opposition is a higher initial priority than handling the case of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the State Department said. (...)
Some lawmakers, including Clinton's former Senate colleague, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer have called on the Obama administration to withhold U.S. support for the rebels until Megrahi is jailed and independently examined by medical professionals to determine his health status. Other lawmakers and at least one Republican presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, have urged the administration to demand that the opposition arrest and extradite al-Megrahi.
But [State Department spokeswoman Victoria] Nuland said that the Libyan opposition's most important tasks are finishing its apparent victory over Gadhafi, restoring stability and starting a democratic transition. She said the administration would keep up pressure over the al-Megrahi case but would not link it to the return of assets. She also noted that it was Gadhafi, not his foes, who had treated al-Megrahi as a hero.
"We all have to take a hard line, and we have been, on Megrahi and anybody else who has blood on their hands from the Lockerbie bombing, and we will continue to do so," she told reporters.
"We need to give the TNC a chance to do job one, which is to finish the job of ousting Gadhafi and his regime; begin the job of establishing Libya on a democratic path," Nuland said. "And we are very gratified by the fact that they have made clear that they are willing to look into this. We will continue to talk to them about it, and we will certainly make sure that Congress's views are conveyed."
The opposition has pledged to look at the handling of the al-Megrahi case once it has established itself as a fully functioning government.
That is apparently not soon enough for some. (...)
New York's other senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and New Jersey Sens Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg have also made the al-Megrahi case an issue.
The Obama administration said Wednesday it will continue to press Libyan rebels to review the case of the convicted Lockerbie bomber but ruled out making the transfer of frozen Gadhafi regime assets contingent on his return to prison.
Getting the money to the opposition is a higher initial priority than handling the case of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the State Department said. (...)
Some lawmakers, including Clinton's former Senate colleague, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer have called on the Obama administration to withhold U.S. support for the rebels until Megrahi is jailed and independently examined by medical professionals to determine his health status. Other lawmakers and at least one Republican presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, have urged the administration to demand that the opposition arrest and extradite al-Megrahi.
But [State Department spokeswoman Victoria] Nuland said that the Libyan opposition's most important tasks are finishing its apparent victory over Gadhafi, restoring stability and starting a democratic transition. She said the administration would keep up pressure over the al-Megrahi case but would not link it to the return of assets. She also noted that it was Gadhafi, not his foes, who had treated al-Megrahi as a hero.
"We all have to take a hard line, and we have been, on Megrahi and anybody else who has blood on their hands from the Lockerbie bombing, and we will continue to do so," she told reporters.
"We need to give the TNC a chance to do job one, which is to finish the job of ousting Gadhafi and his regime; begin the job of establishing Libya on a democratic path," Nuland said. "And we are very gratified by the fact that they have made clear that they are willing to look into this. We will continue to talk to them about it, and we will certainly make sure that Congress's views are conveyed."
The opposition has pledged to look at the handling of the al-Megrahi case once it has established itself as a fully functioning government.
That is apparently not soon enough for some. (...)
New York's other senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and New Jersey Sens Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg have also made the al-Megrahi case an issue.
Thursday 25 August 2011
The CIA’s top priority in Libya
[This is part of the headline over an article by Wayne Madsen published today on the Intrepid Report website. It reads in part:]
Intelligence files held by Qaddafi’s government on the 1988 downing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland and the files on negotiations on the release of accused bomber, former Libyan intelligence agent Abdelbaset al Megrahi, will also be a high priority for seizure by the CIA. The files, if released to the public, will show that it was Iran, not Libya, that was responsible for the 1988 downing of PanAm 103 and that it was President George H W Bush who ordered Libya be blamed to clear the way for a showdown with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein by absolving Iran of any blame and ensuring Tehran’s neutrality in the Operation Desert Storm showdown with Iraq.
There are now calls for Megrahi to be renditioned to the United States to stand trial for the PanAm 103 bombing. Megrahi was freed by the Scottish government in close consultation with Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government, because he was suffering from cancer and was believed to be terminally ill. However, it is believed that the deal was cut to give British Petroleum expanded access to Libyan oil fields and guarantee Libyan bailout funds for failed British banks. Libyan documents on the British-Libyan deals are also highly sought by the CIA and Britain’s MI-6 intelligence service.
A secret report that alleges that Megrahi was innocent of carrying out the PanAm 103 bombing is due to be released soon by the Commission (SCCRC). New Jersey senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both recipients of large amounts of Israeli campaign cash through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have called for Megrahi to be extradited by the Libyan rebel government to stand trial in the United States for Lockerbie. However, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond stands by his decision to free Megrahi and any move by the United States to second-guess Scotland may result in frayed relations between the Scottish government and the United States, especially seen as important with Scotland’s government striving for independence from Britain and the US submarine base at Holy Loch a potential casualty of a fracture in relations between Washington and Edinburgh.
In the record of the CIA’s sordid operations in the Middle East, Operation Desert Storm led to Operation Iraqi Freedom and finally, Operation Mermaid Dawn, the capture of Tripoli by Libyan rebel forces. One of the casualties of Mermaid Dawn will be the continued secrecy of the power politics that led to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and now NATO’s proxies’ invasion and occupation of Libya.
Intelligence files held by Qaddafi’s government on the 1988 downing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland and the files on negotiations on the release of accused bomber, former Libyan intelligence agent Abdelbaset al Megrahi, will also be a high priority for seizure by the CIA. The files, if released to the public, will show that it was Iran, not Libya, that was responsible for the 1988 downing of PanAm 103 and that it was President George H W Bush who ordered Libya be blamed to clear the way for a showdown with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein by absolving Iran of any blame and ensuring Tehran’s neutrality in the Operation Desert Storm showdown with Iraq.
There are now calls for Megrahi to be renditioned to the United States to stand trial for the PanAm 103 bombing. Megrahi was freed by the Scottish government in close consultation with Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government, because he was suffering from cancer and was believed to be terminally ill. However, it is believed that the deal was cut to give British Petroleum expanded access to Libyan oil fields and guarantee Libyan bailout funds for failed British banks. Libyan documents on the British-Libyan deals are also highly sought by the CIA and Britain’s MI-6 intelligence service.
A secret report that alleges that Megrahi was innocent of carrying out the PanAm 103 bombing is due to be released soon by the Commission (SCCRC). New Jersey senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both recipients of large amounts of Israeli campaign cash through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have called for Megrahi to be extradited by the Libyan rebel government to stand trial in the United States for Lockerbie. However, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond stands by his decision to free Megrahi and any move by the United States to second-guess Scotland may result in frayed relations between the Scottish government and the United States, especially seen as important with Scotland’s government striving for independence from Britain and the US submarine base at Holy Loch a potential casualty of a fracture in relations between Washington and Edinburgh.
In the record of the CIA’s sordid operations in the Middle East, Operation Desert Storm led to Operation Iraqi Freedom and finally, Operation Mermaid Dawn, the capture of Tripoli by Libyan rebel forces. One of the casualties of Mermaid Dawn will be the continued secrecy of the power politics that led to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and now NATO’s proxies’ invasion and occupation of Libya.
US lawmakers urge new moves against Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a Reuters news agency report issued yesterday evening. It reads in part:]
New York and New Jersey politicians are demanding that any new government in Tripoli extradite to the United States a Libyan official convicted in Britain for the December 1988 bombing of a US-bound airliner. (...)
Representative Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, called on the Libyan rebels' Transitional National Council "to engage responsibly with the world community by extraditing Abdel Baset al-Megrahi to the United States to face justice for the Lockerbie bombing."
New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, also a Democrat, wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggesting that if Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is ever brought before the International Criminal Court, he should also be prosecuted, for ordering the Pan Am 103 bombing.
However, a representative of the TNC indicated the US discussion about Megrahi and Lockerbie is premature. In a written statement, Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali said: "Before we can deliver justice to Gaddafi's many victims, we must first bring down the regime and then turn to the important work of forming a new government, writing a constitution, and establishing the rule of law."
"The Libyan people, the TNC will obviously have to look at this when they can," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
"The secretary's made clear this guy should be behind bars. The Department of Justice has the lead on these issues," she said. "No decisions have been made, we have to let Justice do its job here and we also have to have a Libyan government back in Tripoli before these conversations can happen." (...)
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd, said: "We remain firmly committed to bringing to justice everyone who may have been involved in the Pan Am 103 bombing. The Justice Department investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing that was initiated on December 21, 1988 remains open and active."
While the decision to release Megrahi was made by Scottish officials, documents published by the Scottish government indicated that officials of the British government, which at the time was headed by Labor Party prime minister Gordon Brown, supported the Scottish decision.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the British Embassy in Washington sought to distance Britain's current Conservative leader, David Cameron, from the Megrahi release decision, saying that the "Prime Minister has made clear that the Scottish Government decision to release Al-Megrahi was wrong and misguided."
But the spokesperson added that Britain had "no mechanism in place to request a person who has been released on compassionate grounds to be returned to prison if they have survived for longer than the period diagnosed by the relevant medical authorities."
New York and New Jersey politicians are demanding that any new government in Tripoli extradite to the United States a Libyan official convicted in Britain for the December 1988 bombing of a US-bound airliner. (...)
Representative Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, called on the Libyan rebels' Transitional National Council "to engage responsibly with the world community by extraditing Abdel Baset al-Megrahi to the United States to face justice for the Lockerbie bombing."
New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, also a Democrat, wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggesting that if Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is ever brought before the International Criminal Court, he should also be prosecuted, for ordering the Pan Am 103 bombing.
However, a representative of the TNC indicated the US discussion about Megrahi and Lockerbie is premature. In a written statement, Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali said: "Before we can deliver justice to Gaddafi's many victims, we must first bring down the regime and then turn to the important work of forming a new government, writing a constitution, and establishing the rule of law."
"The Libyan people, the TNC will obviously have to look at this when they can," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
"The secretary's made clear this guy should be behind bars. The Department of Justice has the lead on these issues," she said. "No decisions have been made, we have to let Justice do its job here and we also have to have a Libyan government back in Tripoli before these conversations can happen." (...)
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd, said: "We remain firmly committed to bringing to justice everyone who may have been involved in the Pan Am 103 bombing. The Justice Department investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing that was initiated on December 21, 1988 remains open and active."
While the decision to release Megrahi was made by Scottish officials, documents published by the Scottish government indicated that officials of the British government, which at the time was headed by Labor Party prime minister Gordon Brown, supported the Scottish decision.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the British Embassy in Washington sought to distance Britain's current Conservative leader, David Cameron, from the Megrahi release decision, saying that the "Prime Minister has made clear that the Scottish Government decision to release Al-Megrahi was wrong and misguided."
But the spokesperson added that Britain had "no mechanism in place to request a person who has been released on compassionate grounds to be returned to prison if they have survived for longer than the period diagnosed by the relevant medical authorities."
Sunday 21 August 2011
Court should have heard ID evidence
[This is the headline over a report published yesterday evening on the Mirror website. It reads as follows:]
The veracity of identification evidence that led to the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing "could and should have been judged in a court of law", according to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.
Mr Salmond said it is unfortunate that Megrahi's appeal against his conviction never reached the High Court.
However, the First Minister said he has "never doubted Mr Megrahi's guilt".
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is currently withholding a report which raises questions about identification evidence that led to Megrahi's conviction, and contains its statement of reasons for referring the conviction back to the High Court.
The Libyan dropped his appeal shortly before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release him.
Speaking at a charity race day in Perth on the second anniversary of Megrahi's release, Mr Salmond said: "The SCCRC wanted to remit the case back to the court of appeal.
"That wasn't based on the forensics, which it upheld, but on identification evidence upon which there was a question mark which could and should have been judged in a court of law. Unfortunately that wasn't possible. I have never doubted Mr Megrahi's guilt."
The Scottish Government has pledged to bring about a change in the law to allow the SCCRC report to be published.
Mr Salmond said this publication would negate the need for a public inquiry, saying the report "will give more information than any public inquiry ever could".
The First Minister said he knows nothing about reports that the United States has made a "secret deal" with anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya to seize Megrahi and try him in a US court. He said: "I've read a number of reports, mutually contradictory incidentally, and I suspect they are based on very little indeed."
[It is clear that if the First Minister has "never doubted" Megrahi's guilt he simply has not read the Zeist court's reasons for convicting him or Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result or The SCCRC Decision.
Meanwhile, US Senators Menendez and Lautenberg are at it again.]
The veracity of identification evidence that led to the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing "could and should have been judged in a court of law", according to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.
Mr Salmond said it is unfortunate that Megrahi's appeal against his conviction never reached the High Court.
However, the First Minister said he has "never doubted Mr Megrahi's guilt".
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is currently withholding a report which raises questions about identification evidence that led to Megrahi's conviction, and contains its statement of reasons for referring the conviction back to the High Court.
The Libyan dropped his appeal shortly before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release him.
Speaking at a charity race day in Perth on the second anniversary of Megrahi's release, Mr Salmond said: "The SCCRC wanted to remit the case back to the court of appeal.
"That wasn't based on the forensics, which it upheld, but on identification evidence upon which there was a question mark which could and should have been judged in a court of law. Unfortunately that wasn't possible. I have never doubted Mr Megrahi's guilt."
The Scottish Government has pledged to bring about a change in the law to allow the SCCRC report to be published.
Mr Salmond said this publication would negate the need for a public inquiry, saying the report "will give more information than any public inquiry ever could".
The First Minister said he knows nothing about reports that the United States has made a "secret deal" with anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya to seize Megrahi and try him in a US court. He said: "I've read a number of reports, mutually contradictory incidentally, and I suspect they are based on very little indeed."
[It is clear that if the First Minister has "never doubted" Megrahi's guilt he simply has not read the Zeist court's reasons for convicting him or Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result or The SCCRC Decision.
Meanwhile, US Senators Menendez and Lautenberg are at it again.]
Sunday 31 July 2011
Call for Megrahi to have 'open door' to Scotland
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Supporters of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi say he should be allowed to return to Scotland to avoid being extradited to the United States.
The Justice for Megrahi group is calling on the Scottish Government to offer him an "open door" after American senators declared last week that they hoped to persuade Libyan rebels to hand him over if they gain control of the country.
Megrahi's supporters say the Scottish Government should pre-empt such a plan by bringing him back to Scotland to prevent a "diplomatic disaster".
Robert Forrester, of the Justice for Megrahi group, wrote: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
His comments come after US politicians stepped up their war of words over Megrahi's release after TV images of the bomber were broadcast at a pro-Gaddafi event in Libya last week.
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said he hoped to persuade a new Libyan government "to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is responsible for monitoring al-Megrahi's release licence, and the council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr al-Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya."
[The same newspaper publishes a long article by Eddie Barnes headlined As the anniversary of the Lockerbie bomber's release looms are we any closer to solving the riddle? This focusses on the release of Megrahi and the medical evidence that underpinned it. There are extensive quotes from representatives of US relatives of Pan Am 103 victims but, strangely enough, none from UK relatives whose attitude has always been markedly different. The article does at least recognise that there are doubts about the Megrahi conviction in the following passage:]
Under pressure once again, MacAskill last week repeated the now familiar words he had used two years ago when he told the world that the man found guilty of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity could pack his bags and go home. Megrahi was suffering from a terminal illness; his fate was in the hands of a higher power; the Scottish Government had acted in good faith - and not with reference to any "deals in the desert".
And while MacAskill will find himself under greater pressure, it may be that the focus moves away from the decision to set him free to the decision to convict him in the first place. Last week, Salmond repeated his pledge to publish a confidential report, compiled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which sets out its reasons for sending Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
If published, the report, which was locked away after Megrahi dropped his appeal, is likely to put fresh scrutiny on his involvement in the bombing. (...)
Inquiries by Scottish prosecutors remain "ongoing". The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it can retry Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was found not guilty at the Camp Zeist trial in 2001. Prosecutors are re-examining evidence to see whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Meanwhile, US Senators are hoping to use the Libyan revolution to spirit Megrahi back out of Libya to the US. Having watched Megrahi on the TV, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said last week: "I will continue to work to ensure that any new government in Libya co-operates with efforts to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes."
Menendez and veteran fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg have written to Hillary Clinton urging her to act. As we report today, the Justice for Megrahi group - which insists he is innocent - are calling on the SNP Government to offer Megrahi the option of returning to Scotland if he wishes to avoid what they describe as the threat of his "rendition" to the US. Robert Forrester, the secretary of the group, says: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
Such a move would be seen as the ultimate betrayal by families in the US, however, many of whom - such as [Frank] Duggan [President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc] - believe 100 per cent in Megrahi's guilt, and view those who consider him innocent as hopelessly naive. As he approaches a second anniversary which none of them ever dreamed of experiencing, Duggan's view of matters is understandably cynical. "There is no credible medical evidence. So the conclusion is that the man was let go for what were diplomatic, commercial and political reasons," he says. It may also be a case that a very sick man is clinging on to life, now that he has something to live for. If he continues to do so, he may finally see the riddle of his life finally brought to light.
Supporters of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi say he should be allowed to return to Scotland to avoid being extradited to the United States.
The Justice for Megrahi group is calling on the Scottish Government to offer him an "open door" after American senators declared last week that they hoped to persuade Libyan rebels to hand him over if they gain control of the country.
Megrahi's supporters say the Scottish Government should pre-empt such a plan by bringing him back to Scotland to prevent a "diplomatic disaster".
Robert Forrester, of the Justice for Megrahi group, wrote: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
His comments come after US politicians stepped up their war of words over Megrahi's release after TV images of the bomber were broadcast at a pro-Gaddafi event in Libya last week.
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said he hoped to persuade a new Libyan government "to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is responsible for monitoring al-Megrahi's release licence, and the council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr al-Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya."
[The same newspaper publishes a long article by Eddie Barnes headlined As the anniversary of the Lockerbie bomber's release looms are we any closer to solving the riddle? This focusses on the release of Megrahi and the medical evidence that underpinned it. There are extensive quotes from representatives of US relatives of Pan Am 103 victims but, strangely enough, none from UK relatives whose attitude has always been markedly different. The article does at least recognise that there are doubts about the Megrahi conviction in the following passage:]
Under pressure once again, MacAskill last week repeated the now familiar words he had used two years ago when he told the world that the man found guilty of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity could pack his bags and go home. Megrahi was suffering from a terminal illness; his fate was in the hands of a higher power; the Scottish Government had acted in good faith - and not with reference to any "deals in the desert".
And while MacAskill will find himself under greater pressure, it may be that the focus moves away from the decision to set him free to the decision to convict him in the first place. Last week, Salmond repeated his pledge to publish a confidential report, compiled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which sets out its reasons for sending Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
If published, the report, which was locked away after Megrahi dropped his appeal, is likely to put fresh scrutiny on his involvement in the bombing. (...)
Inquiries by Scottish prosecutors remain "ongoing". The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it can retry Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was found not guilty at the Camp Zeist trial in 2001. Prosecutors are re-examining evidence to see whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Meanwhile, US Senators are hoping to use the Libyan revolution to spirit Megrahi back out of Libya to the US. Having watched Megrahi on the TV, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said last week: "I will continue to work to ensure that any new government in Libya co-operates with efforts to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes."
Menendez and veteran fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg have written to Hillary Clinton urging her to act. As we report today, the Justice for Megrahi group - which insists he is innocent - are calling on the SNP Government to offer Megrahi the option of returning to Scotland if he wishes to avoid what they describe as the threat of his "rendition" to the US. Robert Forrester, the secretary of the group, says: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
Such a move would be seen as the ultimate betrayal by families in the US, however, many of whom - such as [Frank] Duggan [President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc] - believe 100 per cent in Megrahi's guilt, and view those who consider him innocent as hopelessly naive. As he approaches a second anniversary which none of them ever dreamed of experiencing, Duggan's view of matters is understandably cynical. "There is no credible medical evidence. So the conclusion is that the man was let go for what were diplomatic, commercial and political reasons," he says. It may also be a case that a very sick man is clinging on to life, now that he has something to live for. If he continues to do so, he may finally see the riddle of his life finally brought to light.
Thursday 28 July 2011
Lautenberg statement on Megrahi's appearance at pro-Qaddafi rally
[What follows is the text of a press release issued yesterday by Senator Frank Lautenberg:]
US Senator Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following statement today after video footage showed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi attending a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya. Megrahi is the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 bombing and was released from prison on August 20, 2009, under the presumption he had only three months to live.
“The families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 have suffered so much already, and the images of Megrahi at a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya only add salt to their wounds,” said Lautenberg. “Parading one terrorist out to support another is an affront to justice and further affirmation that Megrahi was released from prison on false pretenses. We will continue to fight for justice on behalf of the Pan Am 103 families.”
Last month, Lautenberg and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to continue working to bring to justice those responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 189 Americans, as well as to return convicted terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to prison. A copy of their letter can be found here.
US Senator Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following statement today after video footage showed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi attending a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya. Megrahi is the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 bombing and was released from prison on August 20, 2009, under the presumption he had only three months to live.
“The families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 have suffered so much already, and the images of Megrahi at a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya only add salt to their wounds,” said Lautenberg. “Parading one terrorist out to support another is an affront to justice and further affirmation that Megrahi was released from prison on false pretenses. We will continue to fight for justice on behalf of the Pan Am 103 families.”
Last month, Lautenberg and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to continue working to bring to justice those responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 189 Americans, as well as to return convicted terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to prison. A copy of their letter can be found here.
Sunday 3 July 2011
US tells Libya rebels: Capture the Lockerbie bomber for us
[This is the headline over a report published today on the Mail Online website. It reads in part:]
A dramatic mission to capture the freed Lockerbie bomber from Libya and return him to face justice in the United States was revealed last night.
Under a secret deal between Barack Obama and Libyan rebel leaders, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi would be detained by opposition troops and then handed over to US Special Forces.
Senior Congressional sources in Washington have disclosed to The Mail on Sunday that President Obama has told the Libyan rebels through intermediaries that a condition of continued support from the US is that they must hand over Megrahi if they enter Tripoli.
The mission would involve Megrahi being flown to a neutral Arab country by US Special Forces once he is handed over by the rebels, and then on to America to face trial. [RB: Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it.] British SAS soldiers are unlikely to be directly involved in the operation.
The plan to capture the bomber came after US Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder last week to demand the US ‘continue working to return Abdelbaset Al Megrahi to prison’.
Mr Menendez has amended a Congressional Bill authorising the continued use of force in Libya to include a paragraph ordering ‘the continuation of Federal investigations into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103’.
Congressional sources disclosed that the US will ‘grab’ Megrahi as soon as they can.
A dramatic mission to capture the freed Lockerbie bomber from Libya and return him to face justice in the United States was revealed last night.
Under a secret deal between Barack Obama and Libyan rebel leaders, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi would be detained by opposition troops and then handed over to US Special Forces.
Senior Congressional sources in Washington have disclosed to The Mail on Sunday that President Obama has told the Libyan rebels through intermediaries that a condition of continued support from the US is that they must hand over Megrahi if they enter Tripoli.
The mission would involve Megrahi being flown to a neutral Arab country by US Special Forces once he is handed over by the rebels, and then on to America to face trial. [RB: Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it.] British SAS soldiers are unlikely to be directly involved in the operation.
The plan to capture the bomber came after US Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder last week to demand the US ‘continue working to return Abdelbaset Al Megrahi to prison’.
Mr Menendez has amended a Congressional Bill authorising the continued use of force in Libya to include a paragraph ordering ‘the continuation of Federal investigations into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103’.
Congressional sources disclosed that the US will ‘grab’ Megrahi as soon as they can.
Friday 17 June 2011
Lautenberg, Menendez call on Clinton & Holder to seek justice for Pan Am 103 bombing
[What follows is the text of a letter sent on 15 June by Senators Lautenberg and Menendez to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder.]
Dear Secretary Clinton and Attorney General Holder:
As high-level Libyan officials continue to defect from the Qaddafi regime, we urge you to do everything in your power to obtain information regarding and hold the responsible parties accountable for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist attacks perpetrated by Libyan officials.
Defecting Libyan officials like former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa may hold valuable information regarding the Pan Am 103 bombing – or may be culpable themselves. The US case to prosecute this heinous crime remains open and our government must do everything possible to gather evidence and any information that could help bring all of those responsible, including Qaddafi, to justice.
As you know, the only person that has been convicted in the Pan Am bombing is now living freely in Libya. On August 20, 2009, the Scottish government released al-Megrahi, based on the assertion that he had less than three months to live. Almost 22 months later, the convicted terrorist is living in luxury in Libya. The families of the victims of Pan Am 103 waited over a decade to see justice with the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, only to have that justice taken away. This is an entirely unacceptable situation and every effort must be made to return al-Megrahi to prison.
The current upheaval in the Libyan government provides a new opportunity to demand responsibility for this act of terrorism. While we recognize there are many critical foreign policy decisions to be made with regard to Libya at this extraordinary time, we ask that justice for the Lockerbie bombing victims and their families remain a top priority and not be overlooked.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Dear Secretary Clinton and Attorney General Holder:
As high-level Libyan officials continue to defect from the Qaddafi regime, we urge you to do everything in your power to obtain information regarding and hold the responsible parties accountable for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist attacks perpetrated by Libyan officials.
Defecting Libyan officials like former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa may hold valuable information regarding the Pan Am 103 bombing – or may be culpable themselves. The US case to prosecute this heinous crime remains open and our government must do everything possible to gather evidence and any information that could help bring all of those responsible, including Qaddafi, to justice.
As you know, the only person that has been convicted in the Pan Am bombing is now living freely in Libya. On August 20, 2009, the Scottish government released al-Megrahi, based on the assertion that he had less than three months to live. Almost 22 months later, the convicted terrorist is living in luxury in Libya. The families of the victims of Pan Am 103 waited over a decade to see justice with the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, only to have that justice taken away. This is an entirely unacceptable situation and every effort must be made to return al-Megrahi to prison.
The current upheaval in the Libyan government provides a new opportunity to demand responsibility for this act of terrorism. While we recognize there are many critical foreign policy decisions to be made with regard to Libya at this extraordinary time, we ask that justice for the Lockerbie bombing victims and their families remain a top priority and not be overlooked.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Saturday 5 March 2011
Libyan leader ordered Lockerbie bombing, envoy tells NJ senators
[This is the headline over a report published on Thursday on the New Jersey Courier Post Online website. I refer to it (and to a further news report that can be read here) because the ambassador to the US, Ali Aujali, had previously stated that Libya had agreed to compensate the relatives of the victims only in order to get back into normal diplomatic and commercial relations with the US, the UK and the rest of the Western world, and not because of any recognition of responsibility for the bombing. The report reads in part:]
But Ali Suleiman Aujali didn’t produce evidence to back up his claim during a meeting with New Jersey Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg and New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.
He offered to put U.S. officials in touch with the just-resigned Libyan justice minister, who has proof, Lautenberg said. (...)
Before the U.S. establishes diplomatic ties with a new government, Menendez said he would push for the Libyans to extradite Abdel Basset al-Megrahi so he could spend the rest of his life in an American prison. (...)
Of the 189 Americans on board, 38 were from New Jersey.
[Because of continuing problems with the telephone service and with electricity supply here in the Roggeveld Karoo, postings on this blog are likely to remain intermittent.]
But Ali Suleiman Aujali didn’t produce evidence to back up his claim during a meeting with New Jersey Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg and New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.
He offered to put U.S. officials in touch with the just-resigned Libyan justice minister, who has proof, Lautenberg said. (...)
Before the U.S. establishes diplomatic ties with a new government, Menendez said he would push for the Libyans to extradite Abdel Basset al-Megrahi so he could spend the rest of his life in an American prison. (...)
Of the 189 Americans on board, 38 were from New Jersey.
[Because of continuing problems with the telephone service and with electricity supply here in the Roggeveld Karoo, postings on this blog are likely to remain intermittent.]
Wednesday 22 December 2010
This Lockerbie bomber nonsense shows US senators have lost the plot
The US Senate's conspiracy theory about Megrahi shows just how ignorant it is of British politics, writes Alan Cochrane.
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
Tuesday 21 December 2010
UK officials greased Lockerbie bomber's release, report finds
[This is the headline over an article just published on the msnbc.com website based on an advance copy of the report to be issued today by US Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Schumer and Gillibrand. It reads in part:]
Intense political pressures and "commercial warfare" waged by the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi led to last year’s release of the "unrepentant terrorist" who blew up Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, according to a new report prepared by four US senators.
The report is being released Tuesday, 22 years to the day after a terrorist bomb exploded aboard the Pan Am airliner, killing 270 people — including 189 Americans — in one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11.
An advance copy of the report – titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber — was provided to NBC News.
The report finds that senior officials under former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown quietly and repeatedly pressured Scottish authorities to release Abdel Baset Ali al-al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing.
They did so in order to protect British business interests in Libya, including a $900 million BP oil deal that the Libyans had threatened to cut off, as well as a $165 million arms sale with a British defense firm that was signed the same month al-Megrahi was freed from prison, the report states.
“This was a case in which commercial and economic considerations trumped the message of our global fight against terrorism,” said Sen Bob Menendez, D-NJ, one of the four senators, who commissioned the report by a Senate investigator.
"God forbid there should be another terrorist attack. We have to make it impossible that anything like this injustice takes place again," he added.
The report also concludes that, in releasing Megrahi last year on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had only three months to live, Scottish authorities relied on a "false" and "flawed" medical prognosis that was possibly influenced by a doctor hired by the Libyan government. (Although there were recent reports that Megrahi was in a coma, that account has been disputed. As the Senate report notes, he remains alive, reportedly living in a luxury villa in Tripoli.)
The Senate report calls for a renewed investigation into Megrahi’s release by the State Department and a public apology by both the British and Scottish governments.
That request was rejected this week by both British and Scottish officials. "We totally reject their false interpretation," a Scottish government spokesperson said in an emailed response to NBC News. The decision to release Megrahi "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations, but on the precepts of Scots law and nothing else."
[For those with a strong stomach, the full report by the four senators can be read here.
There is now a report on the Telegraph website which can be read here.]
Intense political pressures and "commercial warfare" waged by the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi led to last year’s release of the "unrepentant terrorist" who blew up Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, according to a new report prepared by four US senators.
The report is being released Tuesday, 22 years to the day after a terrorist bomb exploded aboard the Pan Am airliner, killing 270 people — including 189 Americans — in one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11.
An advance copy of the report – titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber — was provided to NBC News.
The report finds that senior officials under former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown quietly and repeatedly pressured Scottish authorities to release Abdel Baset Ali al-al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing.
They did so in order to protect British business interests in Libya, including a $900 million BP oil deal that the Libyans had threatened to cut off, as well as a $165 million arms sale with a British defense firm that was signed the same month al-Megrahi was freed from prison, the report states.
“This was a case in which commercial and economic considerations trumped the message of our global fight against terrorism,” said Sen Bob Menendez, D-NJ, one of the four senators, who commissioned the report by a Senate investigator.
"God forbid there should be another terrorist attack. We have to make it impossible that anything like this injustice takes place again," he added.
The report also concludes that, in releasing Megrahi last year on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had only three months to live, Scottish authorities relied on a "false" and "flawed" medical prognosis that was possibly influenced by a doctor hired by the Libyan government. (Although there were recent reports that Megrahi was in a coma, that account has been disputed. As the Senate report notes, he remains alive, reportedly living in a luxury villa in Tripoli.)
The Senate report calls for a renewed investigation into Megrahi’s release by the State Department and a public apology by both the British and Scottish governments.
That request was rejected this week by both British and Scottish officials. "We totally reject their false interpretation," a Scottish government spokesperson said in an emailed response to NBC News. The decision to release Megrahi "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations, but on the precepts of Scots law and nothing else."
[For those with a strong stomach, the full report by the four senators can be read here.
There is now a report on the Telegraph website which can be read here.]
Thursday 30 September 2010
Scottish Government statement following Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
[Various organs of the media have reported the Scottish Government's reaction to Wednesday's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The full statement issued by the Scottish Government to the media is as follows:]
Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."
Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.
"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.
"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.
"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.
"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."
[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]
The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)
The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.
Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.
Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.
An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.
"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.
"The significance of this is very important.
"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.
"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)
Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.
This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.
"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."
It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.
"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.
"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."
The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.
A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.
A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)
But the senator's office have a different assessment.
"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.
"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."
Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.
The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.
He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."
He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.
"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."
A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."
Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.
"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."
In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.
"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."
Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."
Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.
"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.
"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.
"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.
"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."
[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]
The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)
The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.
Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.
Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.
An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.
"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.
"The significance of this is very important.
"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.
"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)
Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.
This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.
"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."
It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.
"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.
"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."
The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.
A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.
A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)
But the senator's office have a different assessment.
"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.
"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."
Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.
The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.
He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."
He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.
"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."
A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."
Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.
"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."
In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.
"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."
Thursday 16 September 2010
US team to discuss Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report just issued by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]
US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.
Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)
The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.
"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."
The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]
Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.
US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.
[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]
US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.
Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)
The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.
"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."
The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]
Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.
US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.
[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]
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
Wednesday 18 August 2010
Salmond defends the early release of Megrahi
The head of Scotland's government said Wednesday that he stands by his country's decision a year ago to release a man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing from prison on compassionate grounds despite new questions about his prognosis.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said in an interview with The Associated Press that "everything we've done on the Lockerbie case over the last 20 years...has been done following the precepts of Scottish jurisdiction and Scots law." (...)
He said his government clearly stated, in announcing its decision to release al-Megrahi, that "this is an estimate, that Mr Megrahi may live shorter than three months, he may live longer than three months."
"Everybody knows from their own experience of friends and family that it's extraordinarily difficult to be precise over the exact term of life of somebody with a terminal illness," Salmond said. "Our doctors made a reasonable estimate at the time, and our ministers followed that medical advice."
He spoke to the AP in Oslo, Norway, where he was attending bilateral meetings on economic and energy ties between Scotland and the oil-rich Nordic country.
Scotland will not seek the return of al-Megrahi, Salmond said, noting that, in past instances, prisoners released on compassionate grounds were not returned to prison even if they lived longer than expected.
Last week, four Democratic US senators — Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, of New York, and Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey — sent a letter to Salmond asking that al-Megrahi's full medical records be disclosed. (...)
"Clearly, we've made the point that the Scottish government...is not answerable to the United States Senate, nor is the American government answerable to the Scottish Parliament," Salmond said. "But we've tried to co-operate to answer all of the questions."
He said he'd responded to the letter, but that there was no more information to share since Scotland has "already published, and did last year, all relevant information because we have nothing to fear from the scrutiny and from the examination of anybody, domestically or internationally."
"The point I've made is that there's only one medical report" that informed Scotland's decision, he said.
That report — by Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser — shows Fraser was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report describes the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirms that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.
Salmond categorically denied allegations that any outside influence — such as claims that oil giant BP pressured Scotland to free al-Megrahi so it could win access to Libyan oil reserves — affected Scotland's decision.
[From a report by The Associated Press news agency on the website of The Canadian Press.]
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said in an interview with The Associated Press that "everything we've done on the Lockerbie case over the last 20 years...has been done following the precepts of Scottish jurisdiction and Scots law." (...)
He said his government clearly stated, in announcing its decision to release al-Megrahi, that "this is an estimate, that Mr Megrahi may live shorter than three months, he may live longer than three months."
"Everybody knows from their own experience of friends and family that it's extraordinarily difficult to be precise over the exact term of life of somebody with a terminal illness," Salmond said. "Our doctors made a reasonable estimate at the time, and our ministers followed that medical advice."
He spoke to the AP in Oslo, Norway, where he was attending bilateral meetings on economic and energy ties between Scotland and the oil-rich Nordic country.
Scotland will not seek the return of al-Megrahi, Salmond said, noting that, in past instances, prisoners released on compassionate grounds were not returned to prison even if they lived longer than expected.
Last week, four Democratic US senators — Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, of New York, and Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey — sent a letter to Salmond asking that al-Megrahi's full medical records be disclosed. (...)
"Clearly, we've made the point that the Scottish government...is not answerable to the United States Senate, nor is the American government answerable to the Scottish Parliament," Salmond said. "But we've tried to co-operate to answer all of the questions."
He said he'd responded to the letter, but that there was no more information to share since Scotland has "already published, and did last year, all relevant information because we have nothing to fear from the scrutiny and from the examination of anybody, domestically or internationally."
"The point I've made is that there's only one medical report" that informed Scotland's decision, he said.
That report — by Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser — shows Fraser was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report describes the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirms that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.
Salmond categorically denied allegations that any outside influence — such as claims that oil giant BP pressured Scotland to free al-Megrahi so it could win access to Libyan oil reserves — affected Scotland's decision.
[From a report by The Associated Press news agency on the website of The Canadian Press.]
Thursday 12 August 2010
Letter to editors
[What follows is the text of a letter sent on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi campaign to the editors of selected newspapers and broadcast news media in the United Kingdom and abroad.]
In recent weeks the issues surrounding the release and repatriation to Libya of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi have been dominating television newscasts, newspaper front pages, editorials and comment on letter pages of the press throughout the UK, most notably in Scotland.
Whilst there have been demands from a number of quarters to open an inquiry into how and why Mr Al-Megrahi was availed of compassionate release, you will certainly also be aware of the efforts of others to not only investigate this but to establish a full, comprehensive and open public inquiry into the entire Lockerbie affair including:
*The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
*The police investigation of the tragedy.
*The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
*The acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.
*The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
*The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Ever since Mr Al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, many of the bereaved and eminent public figures from the fourth estate, legal, political, academic and religious spheres have protested that the trial was a travesty of justice. In the latter months of 2008, a campaign was launched with the express aim of obtaining Justice for Megrahi (JFM). Since its founding, it has petitioned the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation, the Government of Malta, and most recently the Scottish Government and members of the US Senate to support the establishment of a comprehensive, public inquiry, of the type mentioned above, into all matters pertaining to the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie tragedy. At the heart of this campaign from its inception has lain a commitment to see transparency prevail and justice done in a case which from the outset has been afflicted with accusations of buck passing, obfuscation, political interference and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Confusion still continues to reign where this case is concerned, ranging from some believing that Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted by eight Law Lords to his having been released via the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). Both of these contentions are erroneous. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of fact, and it has always been central to this campaign, whether he actually committed the offence he has been convicted of or not, that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice based simply on the evidence laid before the three judges at Zeist by the prosecution. We do not seek to attribute blame for the events of 21st December 1988. We do not seek retribution for investigatory or judicial shortcomings. We seek justice in the name of justice.
Courts of fact can and do get things wrong. This, after all, is precisely why we rely on the institution of the Court of Appeal. Where most convicts would be happy to have their case put before the appeal court on just one ground for appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal was referred to the Court of Appeal by the SCCRC on no fewer than six grounds. Taking this into account, we also fully and deeply identify with those bereaved friends and families who, perfectly understandably, believe the conviction to be safe. Clearly they, more than any other group, would be utterly devastated if it were to be established that the conviction was unsafe. Nevertheless, if Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal is not to be heard, the only option remaining is an inquiry. Justice should not and must not be viewed as a tool of convenience. It is our belief that all of the bereaved, regardless of their positions, have been done a disservice under Scots Law at Zeist.
For your convenience, you will find included below the letters sent to Mr Salmond and Mr McAskill, and, additionally, to the American senators. Furthermore, you will also find the list of signatories who are endorsing the objective of opening a Lockerbie public inquiry.
It is our belief that the fourth estate owes a moral obligation, not only to its readers and viewers but to the bereaved of Lockerbie especially, to commit its voice firmly behind demands for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist. MSPs have already come out in support of such an inquiry, and although both Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have endorsed such in principle, they seem hesitant to grasp the nettle where it comes to setting one up in Scotland. Moreover, the media have a vital and powerful role to play in ensuring that our Scottish justice system, which is currently regarded internationally as an embarrassment, and is seen as demonstrably malleable by political hands, is reinstated to its rightful former position as an institution which can be looked up to, respected and trusted by the people.
With this in mind, we wish to extend to you an invitation to place your name alongside those of the other signatories on the letter to the Scottish Government. We feel that support of this nature from yourself, given the prominent stature of your institution, would add considerable weight to promoting the aims of this campaign.
The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet.
*The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue.
The time to act is now. The once good name of Scottish justice can be redeemed. It must not be seen to die with Mr Al-Megrahi and finally sink into a mire of disrepute. Media pressure is a vital tool in achieving this in a case where the judiciary and politicians seem thus far to be failing. We hope that you will find the arguments presented here and in the letters below convincing enough for you to add your name to the list of signatories.
This letter is being sent to multiple press and media outlets.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi committee member).
THE CURRENT LIST OF SIGNATORIES.
Mr John Ashton
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mrs Jean Berkley
(Co-ordinator UK Families Flight 103 and mother of Alistair Berkley: PA103 victim).
Professor Robert Black QC
(Commonly referred to as the Architect of the Camp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky
(Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Mr Tam Dalyell
(Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mr Robert Forrester
(Justice for Megrahi campaign committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame
(Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop
(Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans
(Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the bombing of Pan Am 103).
Mr Iain McKie
(Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills
(Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Denis Phipps
(Aviation security expert).
Mr Steven Raeburn
(Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Doctor Jim Swire
(Justice campaigner. Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor
(Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu
(Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).
LETTER TO FIRST MINISTER MR SALMOND (THE IDENTICAL CONTENT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE MR MACASKILL), 22ND JULY 2010.
Dear First Minister,
I write on behalf of the current signatories to the petition to the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (published in September 2009) requesting the institution of a full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy at Lockerbie in 1988 and the subsequent trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi at Kamp van Zeist, which resulted in his conviction in 2001 for the murder of 270 people. (...)
In August of 2009, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, sanctioned the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi on medical grounds. No matter which side of the fence one is on, Mr MacAskill took a sensitive and challenging decision on an issue that was always going to be contentious and fraught; his conclusion was based on medical advice suggesting that Mr Al-Megrahi's life expectancy might not exceed a total of three months. Medical judgments, much like legal ones, are based on practice and precedent. Medicine, however much we may wish it to be, is not an exact science, hence it is referred to by the term practice; no case is identical to any other in all respects and there must, therefore, always be an element of guesswork involved. Nevertheless, no sooner had the three month period elapsed than protests were emanating from predictable quarters in debating chambers and the press questioning why a Greater Power had neglected to avail Mr Al-Megrahi of an audience.
In light of the recent difficulties being encountered by BP in the USA, these voices have been encouraged to become increasingly shrill: with ill-informed aspersions being cast on an almost daily basis in the direction of the Scottish Government. Mr MacAskill employed due process under Scots law in acting as he did. He did not resort to the device of the PTA but instead applied a facility that is enshrined in Scots law, namely, compassionate release. All Scots have just cause to be proud of their system in this regard insofar as, combined with the fact that we have no death sentence available to us, we can demonstrate that we do not bring our system down to the level of the murderer to resolve our problems, and that we are compassionate. In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release.
In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition). Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.
From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair.
Finally, we should point out that the reason the petition was originally directed to the United Nations was because we considered that although the General Assembly does not have within its gift the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before it (unlike the Security Council), given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow. We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start.
Thank you kindly for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Committee member of Justice for Megrahi).
LETTER TO SENATORS GILLIBRAND, KERRY, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ AND SCHUMER, 29TH JULY 2010.
Dear Senators Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer,
You may be aware that a group of signatories, many of international repute, have lobbied both the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (September 2009) and more recently the Scottish Government (July 2010) in an effort to establish a thorough, all encompassing and open, public inquiry which would cover all matters relating to: the investigation into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 (1988), the Kamp van Zeist trail of Mr Al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah, the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi (2001), and the eventual release of Mr Al-Megrahi (2009). The petition to the Scottish Government received the endorsement of seventeen signatories (see at the end: the list of signatories to the letter sent to the Scottish Government last week followed by a copy of the UN petition).
For your convenience, this link will provide you with a report on the Scottish letter and a link to the letter itself. The letter was sent both to First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2045/Exclusive%3A_Salmond_pressed_to_instigate_inquiry_into_Pan_Am_103_by_international_coalition_including_Tutu%2C_Chomsky%2C_Dalyell%2C_Black_and_Swire.html
In light of recent developments taking place in Washington, signatories to the Scottish Government letter wish to extend an invitation to members of the Senate of the United States of America to add their support to lobbying the Scottish Government for an inquiry by becoming signatories to the letter themselves. We all deeply sympathise with the position of those bereaved families and friends resultant from the 103 tragedy who are satisfied that the Zeist conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was safe. Given their position, it is hardly surprising that they are outraged by his release and return to Libya. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release. We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.
With regard to the release, we too have questions. The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) reached by Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi appears to be in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1192. It, moreover, seems to be rendered invalid by an existing agreement between the UK and US governments, which states that the prisoner was required to serve out his sentence in Scotland. If the PTA was in violation of the aforementioned, why was outrage not expressed on both sides of the Atlantic at the time of its being signed? See this link for details: http://i-p-o.org/Megrahi-statement-Koechler-IPO-nr-21Aug2009.htm
As it happens, and as you will be cognisant of, the PTA was not utilised in the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was released via due process under Scots Law by the device of Compassionate Release available the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, resulting from consideration of the prisoner’s medical condition. However, the following sequence of events may be worthy of investigation: Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal commences, Mr MacAskill visits Mr Al-Megrahi in Greenock gaol for a private interview, Mr Al-Megrahi drops his appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi is released and repatriated to Libya. Given that under Scots Law there is no requirement to drop an appeal to be granted Compassionate Release, many of us would like to know why this was done and what transpired during the meeting between Mr MacAskill and Mr Al-Megrahi at Greenock. See also:
http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Megrahi-release-investigation-21July2010.htm
Dr Swire, in his capacity as one of those many bereaved by the tragedy over twenty-one years ago now, has already made an impassioned plea for support in his quest for justice to Senator Kerry recently. It is essential, even after the passing of so many years, to address the question marks which continue to hang over the entire Lockerbie affair. The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Mr Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. However, the verdict produced such controversy that it is simply not sustainable to continue to claim that it was safe because it was the one preferred by the three judges at the time. This is why we have courts of appeal and why the SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Now that this legal avenue is no longer open, it appears that the only possible recourse to addressing the doubts surrounding the issue is by means of an inquiry.
It is inappropriate in this letter to list the litany of shortcomings in both the investigation of the disaster itself and the prosecution evidence laid before the court at the subsequent trial. The criticism is copious and has long been in the public domain. Professor Robert Black (oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist) and Dr Hans Köchler (International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is? If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.
High above courthouses worldwide stands a statue of Justice holding scales in her left hand and in her right a sword. She is a symbol of the glue that binds together the very fabric of society. We depend on justice and its instrument, the law, to provide cohesion in our relationships. If justice loses its lustre or becomes tarnished, we degenerate into a world of cynicism and chaos. Surely it is a sign of a great society if that society can reflect on its deeds and not be afraid to revisit perceived mistakes to seek redress and right wrongs where they have been committed. To have the resolve to take such action is not an admission of weakness but a sign of supreme strength.
An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a tool with which to achieve expedient results and defend human frailties by obscuring the truth, we are all in a very sorry state indeed. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.
We hope, therefore, that you will feel able to identify with the sentiments expressed in this letter and join with us in lobbying the Scottish Government by adding your names to the list of signatories.
We all thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to hearing your response.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Forrester.
In recent weeks the issues surrounding the release and repatriation to Libya of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi have been dominating television newscasts, newspaper front pages, editorials and comment on letter pages of the press throughout the UK, most notably in Scotland.
Whilst there have been demands from a number of quarters to open an inquiry into how and why Mr Al-Megrahi was availed of compassionate release, you will certainly also be aware of the efforts of others to not only investigate this but to establish a full, comprehensive and open public inquiry into the entire Lockerbie affair including:
*The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
*The police investigation of the tragedy.
*The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
*The acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.
*The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
*The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Ever since Mr Al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, many of the bereaved and eminent public figures from the fourth estate, legal, political, academic and religious spheres have protested that the trial was a travesty of justice. In the latter months of 2008, a campaign was launched with the express aim of obtaining Justice for Megrahi (JFM). Since its founding, it has petitioned the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation, the Government of Malta, and most recently the Scottish Government and members of the US Senate to support the establishment of a comprehensive, public inquiry, of the type mentioned above, into all matters pertaining to the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie tragedy. At the heart of this campaign from its inception has lain a commitment to see transparency prevail and justice done in a case which from the outset has been afflicted with accusations of buck passing, obfuscation, political interference and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Confusion still continues to reign where this case is concerned, ranging from some believing that Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted by eight Law Lords to his having been released via the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). Both of these contentions are erroneous. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of fact, and it has always been central to this campaign, whether he actually committed the offence he has been convicted of or not, that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice based simply on the evidence laid before the three judges at Zeist by the prosecution. We do not seek to attribute blame for the events of 21st December 1988. We do not seek retribution for investigatory or judicial shortcomings. We seek justice in the name of justice.
Courts of fact can and do get things wrong. This, after all, is precisely why we rely on the institution of the Court of Appeal. Where most convicts would be happy to have their case put before the appeal court on just one ground for appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal was referred to the Court of Appeal by the SCCRC on no fewer than six grounds. Taking this into account, we also fully and deeply identify with those bereaved friends and families who, perfectly understandably, believe the conviction to be safe. Clearly they, more than any other group, would be utterly devastated if it were to be established that the conviction was unsafe. Nevertheless, if Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal is not to be heard, the only option remaining is an inquiry. Justice should not and must not be viewed as a tool of convenience. It is our belief that all of the bereaved, regardless of their positions, have been done a disservice under Scots Law at Zeist.
For your convenience, you will find included below the letters sent to Mr Salmond and Mr McAskill, and, additionally, to the American senators. Furthermore, you will also find the list of signatories who are endorsing the objective of opening a Lockerbie public inquiry.
It is our belief that the fourth estate owes a moral obligation, not only to its readers and viewers but to the bereaved of Lockerbie especially, to commit its voice firmly behind demands for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist. MSPs have already come out in support of such an inquiry, and although both Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have endorsed such in principle, they seem hesitant to grasp the nettle where it comes to setting one up in Scotland. Moreover, the media have a vital and powerful role to play in ensuring that our Scottish justice system, which is currently regarded internationally as an embarrassment, and is seen as demonstrably malleable by political hands, is reinstated to its rightful former position as an institution which can be looked up to, respected and trusted by the people.
With this in mind, we wish to extend to you an invitation to place your name alongside those of the other signatories on the letter to the Scottish Government. We feel that support of this nature from yourself, given the prominent stature of your institution, would add considerable weight to promoting the aims of this campaign.
The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet.
*The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue.
The time to act is now. The once good name of Scottish justice can be redeemed. It must not be seen to die with Mr Al-Megrahi and finally sink into a mire of disrepute. Media pressure is a vital tool in achieving this in a case where the judiciary and politicians seem thus far to be failing. We hope that you will find the arguments presented here and in the letters below convincing enough for you to add your name to the list of signatories.
This letter is being sent to multiple press and media outlets.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi committee member).
THE CURRENT LIST OF SIGNATORIES.
Mr John Ashton
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mrs Jean Berkley
(Co-ordinator UK Families Flight 103 and mother of Alistair Berkley: PA103 victim).
Professor Robert Black QC
(Commonly referred to as the Architect of the Camp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky
(Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Mr Tam Dalyell
(Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mr Robert Forrester
(Justice for Megrahi campaign committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame
(Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop
(Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans
(Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the bombing of Pan Am 103).
Mr Iain McKie
(Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills
(Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Denis Phipps
(Aviation security expert).
Mr Steven Raeburn
(Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Doctor Jim Swire
(Justice campaigner. Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor
(Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu
(Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).
LETTER TO FIRST MINISTER MR SALMOND (THE IDENTICAL CONTENT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE MR MACASKILL), 22ND JULY 2010.
Dear First Minister,
I write on behalf of the current signatories to the petition to the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (published in September 2009) requesting the institution of a full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy at Lockerbie in 1988 and the subsequent trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi at Kamp van Zeist, which resulted in his conviction in 2001 for the murder of 270 people. (...)
In August of 2009, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, sanctioned the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi on medical grounds. No matter which side of the fence one is on, Mr MacAskill took a sensitive and challenging decision on an issue that was always going to be contentious and fraught; his conclusion was based on medical advice suggesting that Mr Al-Megrahi's life expectancy might not exceed a total of three months. Medical judgments, much like legal ones, are based on practice and precedent. Medicine, however much we may wish it to be, is not an exact science, hence it is referred to by the term practice; no case is identical to any other in all respects and there must, therefore, always be an element of guesswork involved. Nevertheless, no sooner had the three month period elapsed than protests were emanating from predictable quarters in debating chambers and the press questioning why a Greater Power had neglected to avail Mr Al-Megrahi of an audience.
In light of the recent difficulties being encountered by BP in the USA, these voices have been encouraged to become increasingly shrill: with ill-informed aspersions being cast on an almost daily basis in the direction of the Scottish Government. Mr MacAskill employed due process under Scots law in acting as he did. He did not resort to the device of the PTA but instead applied a facility that is enshrined in Scots law, namely, compassionate release. All Scots have just cause to be proud of their system in this regard insofar as, combined with the fact that we have no death sentence available to us, we can demonstrate that we do not bring our system down to the level of the murderer to resolve our problems, and that we are compassionate. In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release.
In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition). Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.
From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair.
Finally, we should point out that the reason the petition was originally directed to the United Nations was because we considered that although the General Assembly does not have within its gift the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before it (unlike the Security Council), given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow. We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start.
Thank you kindly for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Committee member of Justice for Megrahi).
LETTER TO SENATORS GILLIBRAND, KERRY, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ AND SCHUMER, 29TH JULY 2010.
Dear Senators Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer,
You may be aware that a group of signatories, many of international repute, have lobbied both the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (September 2009) and more recently the Scottish Government (July 2010) in an effort to establish a thorough, all encompassing and open, public inquiry which would cover all matters relating to: the investigation into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 (1988), the Kamp van Zeist trail of Mr Al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah, the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi (2001), and the eventual release of Mr Al-Megrahi (2009). The petition to the Scottish Government received the endorsement of seventeen signatories (see at the end: the list of signatories to the letter sent to the Scottish Government last week followed by a copy of the UN petition).
For your convenience, this link will provide you with a report on the Scottish letter and a link to the letter itself. The letter was sent both to First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2045/Exclusive%3A_Salmond_pressed_to_instigate_inquiry_into_Pan_Am_103_by_international_coalition_including_Tutu%2C_Chomsky%2C_Dalyell%2C_Black_and_Swire.html
In light of recent developments taking place in Washington, signatories to the Scottish Government letter wish to extend an invitation to members of the Senate of the United States of America to add their support to lobbying the Scottish Government for an inquiry by becoming signatories to the letter themselves. We all deeply sympathise with the position of those bereaved families and friends resultant from the 103 tragedy who are satisfied that the Zeist conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was safe. Given their position, it is hardly surprising that they are outraged by his release and return to Libya. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release. We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.
With regard to the release, we too have questions. The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) reached by Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi appears to be in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1192. It, moreover, seems to be rendered invalid by an existing agreement between the UK and US governments, which states that the prisoner was required to serve out his sentence in Scotland. If the PTA was in violation of the aforementioned, why was outrage not expressed on both sides of the Atlantic at the time of its being signed? See this link for details: http://i-p-o.org/Megrahi-statement-Koechler-IPO-nr-21Aug2009.htm
As it happens, and as you will be cognisant of, the PTA was not utilised in the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was released via due process under Scots Law by the device of Compassionate Release available the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, resulting from consideration of the prisoner’s medical condition. However, the following sequence of events may be worthy of investigation: Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal commences, Mr MacAskill visits Mr Al-Megrahi in Greenock gaol for a private interview, Mr Al-Megrahi drops his appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi is released and repatriated to Libya. Given that under Scots Law there is no requirement to drop an appeal to be granted Compassionate Release, many of us would like to know why this was done and what transpired during the meeting between Mr MacAskill and Mr Al-Megrahi at Greenock. See also:
http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Megrahi-release-investigation-21July2010.htm
Dr Swire, in his capacity as one of those many bereaved by the tragedy over twenty-one years ago now, has already made an impassioned plea for support in his quest for justice to Senator Kerry recently. It is essential, even after the passing of so many years, to address the question marks which continue to hang over the entire Lockerbie affair. The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Mr Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. However, the verdict produced such controversy that it is simply not sustainable to continue to claim that it was safe because it was the one preferred by the three judges at the time. This is why we have courts of appeal and why the SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Now that this legal avenue is no longer open, it appears that the only possible recourse to addressing the doubts surrounding the issue is by means of an inquiry.
It is inappropriate in this letter to list the litany of shortcomings in both the investigation of the disaster itself and the prosecution evidence laid before the court at the subsequent trial. The criticism is copious and has long been in the public domain. Professor Robert Black (oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist) and Dr Hans Köchler (International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is? If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.
High above courthouses worldwide stands a statue of Justice holding scales in her left hand and in her right a sword. She is a symbol of the glue that binds together the very fabric of society. We depend on justice and its instrument, the law, to provide cohesion in our relationships. If justice loses its lustre or becomes tarnished, we degenerate into a world of cynicism and chaos. Surely it is a sign of a great society if that society can reflect on its deeds and not be afraid to revisit perceived mistakes to seek redress and right wrongs where they have been committed. To have the resolve to take such action is not an admission of weakness but a sign of supreme strength.
An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a tool with which to achieve expedient results and defend human frailties by obscuring the truth, we are all in a very sorry state indeed. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.
We hope, therefore, that you will feel able to identify with the sentiments expressed in this letter and join with us in lobbying the Scottish Government by adding your names to the list of signatories.
We all thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to hearing your response.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Forrester.
Wednesday 11 August 2010
Libyan-hired docs had no role in Lockerbie release
Doctors for convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had no role in the decision to release him last year on compassionate grounds because of prostate cancer, according to information from Scotland authorities Tuesday.
Three doctors hired by Libyan authorities to assess al Megrahi "played no part of any kind in the decision on compassionate release," according to the information provided on background by a Scottish government official.
Al Megrahi was given three months to live when he was set free by Scotland last year to return home to Libya.
He is still alive today, and four US senators from New York and New Jersey are demanding answers from Scotland on details of the decision to release him. (...)
In a letter Tuesday, the four Democratic senators -- Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York -- asked the Scottish government to release al Megrahi's full medical records.
"We understand that an extensive medical record was used as the basis of the decision to release Mr. al Megrahi, but only one three-page medical document with redactions has been released by the Scottish government," wrote the senators. "Independent examination of Mr. al Megrahi's complete medical record is necessary in order to understand the circumstances surrounding his compassionate release."
A Scottish government spokesman told CNN on Tuesday that the senators' letter had been received, and there would be a response in due course.
Additional information provided on background concluded that a three-month prognosis for al Megrahi was a reasonable estimate, said Dr. Andrew Fraser, the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service.
Fraser's assessment was the medical report submitted to the justice secretary, along with reports from the Parole Board and the prison governor, according to the information, which also said all the reports supported a compassionate release of al Megrahi.
It said Fraser relied on advice from various cancer specialists and denied media reports that the decision was based on the opinion of one doctor.
According to the information, the assessments by the three doctors hired by Libya -- identified as Ibrahim Sherif, Karol Sikora and Jonathan Waxman -- were never considered by Fraser.
[From a report on the CNN website.]
Three doctors hired by Libyan authorities to assess al Megrahi "played no part of any kind in the decision on compassionate release," according to the information provided on background by a Scottish government official.
Al Megrahi was given three months to live when he was set free by Scotland last year to return home to Libya.
He is still alive today, and four US senators from New York and New Jersey are demanding answers from Scotland on details of the decision to release him. (...)
In a letter Tuesday, the four Democratic senators -- Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York -- asked the Scottish government to release al Megrahi's full medical records.
"We understand that an extensive medical record was used as the basis of the decision to release Mr. al Megrahi, but only one three-page medical document with redactions has been released by the Scottish government," wrote the senators. "Independent examination of Mr. al Megrahi's complete medical record is necessary in order to understand the circumstances surrounding his compassionate release."
A Scottish government spokesman told CNN on Tuesday that the senators' letter had been received, and there would be a response in due course.
Additional information provided on background concluded that a three-month prognosis for al Megrahi was a reasonable estimate, said Dr. Andrew Fraser, the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service.
Fraser's assessment was the medical report submitted to the justice secretary, along with reports from the Parole Board and the prison governor, according to the information, which also said all the reports supported a compassionate release of al Megrahi.
It said Fraser relied on advice from various cancer specialists and denied media reports that the decision was based on the opinion of one doctor.
According to the information, the assessments by the three doctors hired by Libya -- identified as Ibrahim Sherif, Karol Sikora and Jonathan Waxman -- were never considered by Fraser.
[From a report on the CNN website.]
Saturday 7 August 2010
US senators demand more info from UK on Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report that has just been published on the Reuters news agency website. It reads in part:]
Four US senators have written to the Foreign Secretary curtly demanding more information to help clear up the "public pall" over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya.
In an accusing tone rarely used with the United States' closest ally, the senators said it appeared British trade interests with Libya had "won out over justice" in last year's release of the man convicted of the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
"It would behoove all of us if you can bring greater transparency to these matters," the four senators told Foreign Secretary William Hague.
They asked whether the previous Labour government could have prevented Abdel Basset al-Megrahi from being returned to Libya after he was released by Scottish authorities on compassionate grounds because of ill health. (...)
The letter was signed by the two US senators from New Jersey, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, as well as the two senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillebrand. All four are Democrats. (...)
Hague wrote a seven-page letter to the Senate last month saying there was no evidence BP was connected to the release.
But the senators said comments by former Foreign Secretary David Miliband -- quoted in Hague's letter -- as well as a letter to Scottish authorities from the Libyan British Business Council urging Megrahi's release, showed trade considerations and British government attitudes may have been influential.
Miliband, who worked for the previous Labour government, was quoted as saying that "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation, would be damaged -- perhaps badly -- if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison." (...)
A British diplomat said the letter would be given the same consideration as earlier correspondence from the senators, but "we've already released quite a lot of information."
[Having been the recipients of a bloody nose from Wee Eck, the Bash Street Kids have now turned their attention to Oor Wullie. Note for non-Scottish readers: this is an arcane Scottish cultural reference.
There is a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph headed "Lockerbie bomber freed over 'low mood'". The story that follows does not, of course, justify the inflammatory headline. We can expect more such gutter journalism as the anniversary of Abdelbaset Megrahi's release approaches.]
Four US senators have written to the Foreign Secretary curtly demanding more information to help clear up the "public pall" over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya.
In an accusing tone rarely used with the United States' closest ally, the senators said it appeared British trade interests with Libya had "won out over justice" in last year's release of the man convicted of the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
"It would behoove all of us if you can bring greater transparency to these matters," the four senators told Foreign Secretary William Hague.
They asked whether the previous Labour government could have prevented Abdel Basset al-Megrahi from being returned to Libya after he was released by Scottish authorities on compassionate grounds because of ill health. (...)
The letter was signed by the two US senators from New Jersey, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, as well as the two senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillebrand. All four are Democrats. (...)
Hague wrote a seven-page letter to the Senate last month saying there was no evidence BP was connected to the release.
But the senators said comments by former Foreign Secretary David Miliband -- quoted in Hague's letter -- as well as a letter to Scottish authorities from the Libyan British Business Council urging Megrahi's release, showed trade considerations and British government attitudes may have been influential.
Miliband, who worked for the previous Labour government, was quoted as saying that "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation, would be damaged -- perhaps badly -- if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison." (...)
A British diplomat said the letter would be given the same consideration as earlier correspondence from the senators, but "we've already released quite a lot of information."
[Having been the recipients of a bloody nose from Wee Eck, the Bash Street Kids have now turned their attention to Oor Wullie. Note for non-Scottish readers: this is an arcane Scottish cultural reference.
There is a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph headed "Lockerbie bomber freed over 'low mood'". The story that follows does not, of course, justify the inflammatory headline. We can expect more such gutter journalism as the anniversary of Abdelbaset Megrahi's release approaches.]
Tuesday 3 August 2010
Alex Salmond attacks senator for Megrahi deal 'insinuation'
[This is the headline over The Scotsman's report on the First Minister's latest letter to Senator Menendez. The following are excerpts:]
The transatlantic row over the Lockerbie bomber has intensified after Alex Salmond accused a US senator of attempting to "insinuate" a false link between his release and a lobbying campaign by BP, and US politicians claimed the Scottish investigations into the affair had been "limited".
In an angry letter to Senator Robert Menendez yesterday, the First Minister defended his decision to snub a US Senate inquiry into the affair as he restated his denial that the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been linked to a lucrative Libyan oil deal.
His comments came as two US politicians sent a terse missive to the Scottish Government, complaining that receiving information in writing was not an "adequate replacement" for witnesses appearing in person and claiming that the Scottish Parliamentary inquest into the compassionate release had not been carried out by an independent investigator and had therefore been restricted. (...)
Mr Salmond said that decision had been made "on principle rather than on any issue of practicality" and claimed the most appropriate way for him to provide information to the senators was in writing.
He added: "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."
Mr Salmond reiterated his insistence there was no evidence of a link between the release and the prisoner transfer agreement, signed by the UK and Libyan governments shortly before BP reached an oil exploration deal with the African country.
"It was with concern I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30 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," he wrote. "This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year." [Note by RB: The Scotsman, for some reason, chooses not to quote the sentences which immediately follow: '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.']
He added: "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." (...)
Later a Holyrood spokesman said questions over the justice committee's handling of the case were not for the First Minister to address.
[The same newspaper has an editorial on the issue. It reads as follows:]
It is clear from Alex Salmond's latest letter to US Senator Robert Menendez that the First Minister is, understandably, beginning to lose patience with the persistent demands and allegations levelled at Scotland from across the Atlantic Ocean.
In his latest missive Mr Salmond is fully justified in taking Senator Menendez to task over the claims the Scottish government released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to pave the way for the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between the UK government and Libya for which the oil company BP lobbied.
As the First Minister rightly points out, there has never been any evidence the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill took his decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds as part of this deal and the insinuation by the Senator in a recent interview that this was the case casts an unwarranted slur on the reputation of the Holyrood government and Scottish justice.
And as if these exchanges were not enough, the water was further muddied last night by another letter, addressed to the Scottish government, from Senator Menendez and his Senatorial colleague Frank Lautenberg which questioned the conduct of an inquiry by the Scottish parliament into the Lockerbie affair.
In response the Scottish government was right to point out that this latest Senate salvo is constitutionally illiterate. Scotland has a separation of powers between the executive arm of government and the elected body to which it is answerable. Just like America.
These latest exchanges have been sparked by the continuing controversy over what happened on that terrible night over Lockerbie in 1988: who was responsible; whether the right man was convicted; and if the PTA agreed by the UK government was linked to BP's bid for business in Libya, once held responsible for bringing down Pan Am 103, but brought into the international fold over the past decade.
In their determination to keep the issue alive - in an election period for them - the Senators are seeing matters from a narrow, US-centric, perspective and conveniently ignoring the doubts over their own country's involvement in the wider Lockerbie story.
There are still questions over the US's warship's downing of an Iran Air A300 Airbus in July 1988 in which 290 passengers were killed, and whether the supposedly retaliatory bombing of Pan Am 103 was the responsibility of Palestinian terrorists linked to Syria, and not Libyans as the US subsequently claimed.
If the Senators are serious in their search for the truth behind the Lockerbie tragedy then, with the same self-proclaimed objective of establishing that truth objectively from evidence, they might care to look a little deeper at the involvement of their own country.
But if, as we suspect, they are not interested in the wider issue and are using the deaths of hundreds of innocent people for partisan electoral purposes then the transatlantic flow of letters from Washington should cease.
In short, a period of silence from Senator Menendez and his colleagues would be welcome.
[The Herald's report, headlined "War of words escalates as Salmond rebukes US senator" can be read here.
The CNN website has a report on the news conference held yesterday by Senators Lautenberg and Menendez. I draw attention to it because of the readers' comments that follow the story. Could it be that the senatorial grandstanding is beginning to backfire even in the United States?
A further report on the CNN website now deals with the First Minister's letter to Senator Menendez.]
The transatlantic row over the Lockerbie bomber has intensified after Alex Salmond accused a US senator of attempting to "insinuate" a false link between his release and a lobbying campaign by BP, and US politicians claimed the Scottish investigations into the affair had been "limited".
In an angry letter to Senator Robert Menendez yesterday, the First Minister defended his decision to snub a US Senate inquiry into the affair as he restated his denial that the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been linked to a lucrative Libyan oil deal.
His comments came as two US politicians sent a terse missive to the Scottish Government, complaining that receiving information in writing was not an "adequate replacement" for witnesses appearing in person and claiming that the Scottish Parliamentary inquest into the compassionate release had not been carried out by an independent investigator and had therefore been restricted. (...)
Mr Salmond said that decision had been made "on principle rather than on any issue of practicality" and claimed the most appropriate way for him to provide information to the senators was in writing.
He added: "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."
Mr Salmond reiterated his insistence there was no evidence of a link between the release and the prisoner transfer agreement, signed by the UK and Libyan governments shortly before BP reached an oil exploration deal with the African country.
"It was with concern I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30 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," he wrote. "This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year." [Note by RB: The Scotsman, for some reason, chooses not to quote the sentences which immediately follow: '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.']
He added: "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." (...)
Later a Holyrood spokesman said questions over the justice committee's handling of the case were not for the First Minister to address.
[The same newspaper has an editorial on the issue. It reads as follows:]
It is clear from Alex Salmond's latest letter to US Senator Robert Menendez that the First Minister is, understandably, beginning to lose patience with the persistent demands and allegations levelled at Scotland from across the Atlantic Ocean.
In his latest missive Mr Salmond is fully justified in taking Senator Menendez to task over the claims the Scottish government released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to pave the way for the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between the UK government and Libya for which the oil company BP lobbied.
As the First Minister rightly points out, there has never been any evidence the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill took his decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds as part of this deal and the insinuation by the Senator in a recent interview that this was the case casts an unwarranted slur on the reputation of the Holyrood government and Scottish justice.
And as if these exchanges were not enough, the water was further muddied last night by another letter, addressed to the Scottish government, from Senator Menendez and his Senatorial colleague Frank Lautenberg which questioned the conduct of an inquiry by the Scottish parliament into the Lockerbie affair.
In response the Scottish government was right to point out that this latest Senate salvo is constitutionally illiterate. Scotland has a separation of powers between the executive arm of government and the elected body to which it is answerable. Just like America.
These latest exchanges have been sparked by the continuing controversy over what happened on that terrible night over Lockerbie in 1988: who was responsible; whether the right man was convicted; and if the PTA agreed by the UK government was linked to BP's bid for business in Libya, once held responsible for bringing down Pan Am 103, but brought into the international fold over the past decade.
In their determination to keep the issue alive - in an election period for them - the Senators are seeing matters from a narrow, US-centric, perspective and conveniently ignoring the doubts over their own country's involvement in the wider Lockerbie story.
There are still questions over the US's warship's downing of an Iran Air A300 Airbus in July 1988 in which 290 passengers were killed, and whether the supposedly retaliatory bombing of Pan Am 103 was the responsibility of Palestinian terrorists linked to Syria, and not Libyans as the US subsequently claimed.
If the Senators are serious in their search for the truth behind the Lockerbie tragedy then, with the same self-proclaimed objective of establishing that truth objectively from evidence, they might care to look a little deeper at the involvement of their own country.
But if, as we suspect, they are not interested in the wider issue and are using the deaths of hundreds of innocent people for partisan electoral purposes then the transatlantic flow of letters from Washington should cease.
In short, a period of silence from Senator Menendez and his colleagues would be welcome.
[The Herald's report, headlined "War of words escalates as Salmond rebukes US senator" can be read here.
The CNN website has a report on the news conference held yesterday by Senators Lautenberg and Menendez. I draw attention to it because of the readers' comments that follow the story. Could it be that the senatorial grandstanding is beginning to backfire even in the United States?
A further report on the CNN website now deals with the First Minister's letter to Senator Menendez.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)