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.]

US Senator seeks Lockerbie 'whistleblowers'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salmond's latest letter to Menendez

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

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

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

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

The letter is copied below:

Dear Senator Menendez

Thank you for your letter of 29 July.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am copying this letter to Senator Kerry.

Alex Salmond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Menendez at work

[This is the heading over a post by Greg Milam on the American Pie blog on the Sky News website. It reads as follows:]

British diplomats in Washington are ‘surprised’ at the rant from US Senator Robert Menendez over his aborted hearing on the Lockerbie bomber.

They had no idea that Mr Menendez was going to give the UK both barrels for, in his eyes, helping to scupper the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting this week.

Maybe Mr Menendez feels a little foolish that he so heavily advertised a hearing before waiting for replies to his witness invitations.

But his announcement of the postponement came perilously close to accusing the UK and Scottish authorities of having something to hide.

Some here have labelled what the committee is investigating as a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Pointing the finger at BP is a pretty easy way of earning popularity in the US at the moment but the planned hearing seemed to cross a line.

Here is the evidence: Scotland says the Lockerbie bomber was freed on compassionate ground.

David Cameron (who even changed his schedule to meet Menendez’s team) says he’s seen nothing to suggest BP played any part in the release.

Both parties have co-operated with the committee and sent over a stack of documents.

For these reasons, it is not surprising that the invited witnesses didn’t fancy a few hours of haranguing from American politicians when the answers had already been provided.

It would set quite a precedent for one country’s legislature to feel it can investigate decisions taken by another.

What the committee, and many Americans, don’t seem to like is that BP was lobbying the UK government at all.

But people in glass houses… Many Americans don’t like the lobbying money bunged at senators to stop, for example, healthcare reform.

If they want a clampdown on lobbying, there are a few senators who would see a big black hole appear in their campaign funding.

They might not like BP very much at the moment – but should it really be one rule for one and another for everyone else?

[And the following is from a post by David Hughes, the chief leader writer of the Daily Telegraph, on a blog hosted by that newspaper.]

BP has hardly covered itself in glory over the Gulf oil spill and, as predicted last week, at least one head had to roll before the oil company could start to draw a line under the business. But the mood is changing fast, not only because the company has shown that it can carry the truly colossal cost of this disaster without going down the tubes. It also appears that the slick is vanishing far faster than thought. (...)

It is against this rather encouraging background that we should view the shameless political show-boating of the US Senate in trying to haul BP’s departing chief executive Tony Hayward to Washington (along with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Scotland’s Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill) to interrogate them on whether BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdulbaset al-Megrahi. Wisely, all three have told the Senate to take a running jump. There is something nauseating about this continued hounding of BP by American law-makers. They live in the most oil-dependent country on the planet yet seem obsessed with kicking the companies that have to do the dirty work of getting the black stuff into their gas-guzzlers.

BP has every right to lobby in defence of its commercial interests – are American senators saying it hasn’t? But it is the job of elected politicians – in this case the Scottish Executive – to take the decisions. Perhaps members of the Senate, so used to being manipulated by lobbyists, have lost sight of that distinction. Their attempt to make political mileage out of this should be treated with the contempt it deserves

US Senator Robert Menendez 'faces corruption charge'

[This is the headline over a report published today on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

The US justice department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, US media reports say.

The politician from New Jersey is alleged to have used his office to promote the interests of a Democratic donor, in exchange for gifts.

Attorney General Eric Holder has reportedly given prosecutors permission to proceed with charges.

Senator Menendez has labelled the probe a smear campaign.

"I am not going anywhere," he said on Friday at a press conference in New Jersey.

"Let me very clear, very clear. I have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law."

An official announcement from prosecutors is expected in the coming weeks.

Sen Menendez is one of the highest-ranking Hispanic members of Congress and a former chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee.

[Senator Menendez has been one of the most high-profile US politicians to intervene in Lockerbie matters. His history in this regard can be followed here.]

US has no records on BP and Lockerbie bomber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish Government statement following Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Scottish Government spokesperson said:

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

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

"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.

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

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

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

"The significance of this is very important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the senator's office have a different assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.

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

US 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.]

Witnesses at US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to quiz US firms over Libya

[This is the headline over a report on the Big On Glasgow website. It reads as follows:]

The US senator locked in a row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber has been told to question American firms’ involvement in lobbying with Libya.

Senator Robert Menendez previously tried to link BP with the Scottish Government’s decision to release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

The oil giant is a member of the Libyan British Business Council (LBBC). The accusation that it affected the release has already prompted an angry rebuttal from First Minister Alex Salmond.

SNP backbencher Christine Grahame has now written to the senator attempting to turn the tables by pointing out that the US firm Exxon Mobil is also a member.

She said: “If Senator Menendez and his colleagues are so concerned that business interests may have lobbied the UK Government they should start by asking their own American businesses.

“Exxon Mobil is the largest oil company in the LBBC and is on its governing council.

“If Senator Menendez wants to find out what the LBBC wanted and if they lobbied the UK Government, the senator should start by questioning Exxon Mobil.”

Last week Senator Menendez issued a plea for “whistleblowers” to come forward as part of his own attempts to investigate the circumstances surrounding Megrahi’s release.

In a television appearance, he cited a letter from Conservative peer Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the LBBC, to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

But a reply from Mr MacAskill stated that political considerations would play no part in considering Megrahi’s release.

[A similar report appears in today's edition of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]

Why the US Senate should question Tony Blair

[This is the headline over an article by Mark Seddon, the former United Nations Correspondent and New York Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera English TV, on the Left Futures website. It reads in part:]

Silence speaks volume. In the unmitigated disaster that is the Gulf of Mexico, two silent partners watch as BP endures a hurricane of criticism, Transocean and Haliburton, who it has been alleged are at least as complicit over the oil spill as the company that has been re-born in sections of the US media as “British Petroleum”. (...)

Just because big business and Government frequently fuse and lobby in such a way all of the time, and just because ‘Big Oil’ has such political and economic power, does not mean that Senator Menendez is wrong to try and pursue answers. Far from it. And just because the British lawmakers he wants to invite in front of his Committee have not taken up his offer, doesn’t mean that his Committee should allow itself to get side-lined. In truth it is difficult to see US lawmakers agree to fly to London to be quizzed by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, just as it is for British and Scottish lawmakers to break all conventions and appear in front of a foreign legislature. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are supplicants.

However, there is nothing stopping Senator Menendez and others coming to London and Edinburgh to find out for themselves what really want on behind the scenes in the run up to the signing of al-Megrahi’s release, they might discover that the whole affair is a good deal murkier than even they imagine.

I interviewed al-Megrahi in Tripoli at a time when the Libyans were refusing to extradite him, and while Libya’s pedigree in backing terrorist outrages was not in doubt. I remember then thinking that something did not quite seem right, and wondering if al-Megrahi – the only man to be convicted for the downing of the Pan Am flight – was being set-up as some kind of scapegoat. A body of evidence amassed in the years since, not least by the now sadly deceased investigative journalist, Paul Foot, does indeed reach the conclusion that al-Megrahi was the scapegoat. The Senator and his team only need visit the offices of Private Eye magazine in Soho, London, and they can see the evidence for themselves. It is also worthy of note that many of the British families who lost family in the Lockerbie bombing also happen to agree that al-Megrahi could be innocent.

That then is one angle. But here is another. In recent days we have seen and heard much from the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, easily the most erudite and informed politician in these islands, a visible reminder of the calibre of politician we have lost. Senator Menendez certainly needs to meet Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, where he will discover I suspect that the Scottish authorities played the release of al-Megrahi by the book. I may of course be wrong, but somehow I do not see that Salmond in particular would have been swayed by lobbying by BP, still less by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In fact Salmond is adamant that, when it came to the Scottish Parliament, there was no lobbying by BP at all.

And so to the other silent voice, the loudest silence of all, from the man who was the architect of the rapprochement with Libya, the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Blair’s ties to BP were so close that the company was at one time nicknamed as ‘Blair Petroleum’. A revolving door existed between Number 10 Downing Street and BP’s head office, and while there is a good argument to suggest that Blair was right to want to lift relations with Libya out of deep freeze, it is probably time to ask exactly why.

Was it because Britain, a perennial target for Libyan inspired terrorist attacks, or Libyan financed terrorist attacks, genuinely wanted to turn over a new leaf with the unpredictable Libyan strongman, Colonel Gadaffi , or was the prospect of black gold too tempting a prospect? Or was it, more likely, a combination of the two?

Big companies such as BP have incredible clout, yet it takes Governments to legislate and Governments to agree prisoner transfer agreements. It takes Governments to revive trade and diplomatic ties. It therefore follows that Governments can if they wish resist the pressure and refuse to legislate or revive diplomatic ties. But when it came to Libya, still ruled by a despot who had never even apologised for the State sponsored financing of terrorism and whose agents shot Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in cold blood outside the Libyan Embassy in London, Tony Blair’s Government wanted to re-open economic ties.

If Senator Menendez wants to get to the bottom of this whole sorry affair he could do no better than inviting Tony Blair to testify on Capitol Hill. After all, Blair has close links with both BP and the Libyan authorities, and is no longer a Parliamentarian but a private citizen. Why should he refuse to go?

Lockerbie: now pressure switches to America

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

Pressure is growing on the US government to release secret documents which detail its position on the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

As the trans-Atlantic row deepens over why Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed from a Scottish jail last summer, the US government is being urged to drop its ban on the publication of letters it sent to both the Scottish Government and Whitehall on the issue.

The US government refused Holyrood permission to make the papers public in a strongly worded letter last September, a month after Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, was allowed to return to Libya following his compassionate release.

But the move to make the documents public took a step forward as the Senate committee on foreign affairs prepares for Thursday’s inquiry into the prisoner’s release, with chairman Senator Robert Menendez requesting that the Scottish Government provide information on Megrahi’s release in five key areas.

They include “any documents including communications to or from Scottish Government officials, relating to the US government’s position on Al Megrahi’s release or transfer to Libyan custody.”

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said last night: “We have received another letter from Senator Menendez, who will chair next week’s hearing, and who has now asked for us to provide five categories of documents relating to the case. We are more than happy to do so, and indeed have already published all we hold on this issue, with the exception of some documents where permission for publication has so far been declined.

“These unpublished documents include correspondence between the Scottish Government and the US Government, whose release Senator Menendez has now requested. We would urge the Senator and his colleagues to work with their own Government so that the remaining information we hold can be published in the interests of maximum transparency.”

The Scottish Government also denied reports that Alex Salmond received a letter from committee member Senator Frank Lautenberg, who is said to have “pleaded” with the First Minister to send a representative to the hearing to add “credibility” to proceedings.

[Another article in the same newspaper by James Cusick contains the following:]

Of all the missing pieces in the jigsaw of information on the Lockerbie bombing and its aftermath one of the most confusing is Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal against his conviction for the greatest terrorist atrocity ever perpetrated over Scottish soil. (...)

The Scottish Government had repeatedly branded the 2007 Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya – brokered in Tripoli in May 2007 by the then-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his foreign affairs adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald – as unconstitutional because it took no account of Scotland’s separate legal identity from the UK Government,

For the prisoner transfer agreement to go ahead Megrahi would have had to drop his appeal. But MacAskill rejected the PTA and opted instead to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds, under the terms of which the appeal could have gone ahead as planned. Yet Megrahi opted to drop it. Why? (...)

MacAskill will have known the full facts that lay behind the SCCRC’s decision to grant the appeal. The commission produced an 800-page report of the decision taken at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001. It was a Scottish court sitting in an independent country, and heard by three high court judges. A further 14 pages offered evaluation of new evidence and new circumstances surrounding the case against Megrahi, and identified six key areas where a potential miscarriage of justice may have taken place. (...)

Perhaps the most damning fall-out from the imminent appeal process, however, is the potential shredding of the evidence used to convict Megrahi and the unanswered questions about why they were admitted to court in the first place. Other uncomfortable questions centre on why wider investigations into the background of key witnesses did not take place on any scale that would have routinely been tested in a different legal arena.

Crucial to Megrahi’s conviction was the prosecution’s ability to place him in Malta on December 7, 1988. That was the day the court identified as the date a purchase was made at Mary’s House, a shop run by Tony Gauci. Clothes bought in the Sliema shop on this specific date were said to have been in the Samsonite case containing the explosive device.

Gauci was the witness who identified Megrahi as buying the clothes from his shop, on December 7. (...) This is crucial because the Libyan’s passport states that he was in Malta at that time. But if the clothes purchase was made earlier then Megrahi couldn’t have been in Malta at the time. That is the new picture painted in the evidence reviewed by the SCCRC. Gauci’s identification of Megrahi in his shop is also questioned.

Documents also allege that at an early stage of the US-UK investigation Gauci asked for, and was given, $2m by the US Department of Justice for his contributions to the case.

Other new areas of evidence which cast doubt on the conviction included documents said to have come from the CIA which relate to the ‘Mebo’ timer that is said to have been the key device which detonated the bomb on the aircraft. Details of these documents were not given to Megrahi’s defence counsel.

The owner of the Mebo firm, Edwin Bollier, is also listed in review of the evidence as claiming that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4m to testify that the fragments of a timer found near the scene of the crash were part of a Mebo MST-13 timer which the company said had been supplied to Libya.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is supposed to be the outcome of any legal process seeking justice. The appeal of Megrahi, had it gone ahead, suggests that Scottish justice fell short in the way it dealt with Lockerbie.

[A third article in The Sunday Herald by Tom Gordon reads in part:]

To many observers, it was the day Kenny MacAskill crossed a line. Before BP’s oil spill made it the focus for conspiracy theories, it was also the moment some felt ministers pressured a dying man to spare the blushes of the Scots legal system.

Just before 9am on Wednesday, August 5 last year, the Justice Secretary entered Greenock Prison for a meeting with inmate 55725. (...)

On May 5, the Libyan government had applied for Megrahi’s release under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) initiated by Tony Blair.

The following month, on the advice of George Burgess, head of the government’s criminal law and licensing division, MacAskill agreed to meetings with key players in the Lockerbie case, including Megrahi.

On July 24, Megrahi made a separate application for release on compassionate grounds. (...)

MacAskill came with Robert Gordon, director of the Justice Department, and Linda Miller, from the Criminal Law and Licensing Division.

According to official notes of the meeting, MacAskill said he would be considering both applications for release “in parallel”.

After asserting his innocence, Megrahi gave a history of his case, from his surrender in 1999, to trial at Camp Zeist in 2001, up to the present day, his illness, separation from his family, and feeling of “desolation”.

MacAskill stressed he could only grant a PTA transfer if there were no court proceedings ongoing – in other words, if Megrahi dropped his appeals against conviction and sentence.

“Mr Megrahi confirmed he understood this point,” the note recorded.

However, according to one of those close to events, Megrahi wrongly took this to mean that dropping his appeals was also a pre-condition of compassionate release. It wasn’t.

“MacAskill said something stupid. He shouldn’t have mentioned the appeal at all. “[The two processes] were conflated. That’s ultimately what Megrahi took from it,” said the source.

A week later, Megrahi signalled he was dropping his appeals.

His QC, Maggie Scott, told the High Court her client thought this would “assist in the early determination of these applications”.

Note the “applications” plural. (...)

A senior legal source told the Sunday Herald Megrahi was definitely under the false impression that abandoning his appeals would help secure compassionate release.

However the Libyan may simply have calculated that with MacAskill considering the PTA and compassionate applications at the same time, ending his appeals would leave both options open rather than just one. [Note by RB: This is the correct interpretation. Mr Megrahi was very well aware that compassionate release did not require abandonment of the appeal. Equally, he knew that prisoner transfer did; and he, like his government, was still labouring under the lingering impression created by Blair and Sheinwald during the "deal in the desert" that his repatriation under the PTA was really a done deal. Release under the PTA was what was really expected, because that was what Nigel and Tony had led the Libyan government to believe.]

On September 2, by a majority vote, the Scottish Parliament declared MacAskill had “mishandled” the release decision, and that meeting Megrahi while considering his application for compassionate release was “wrong”, and an “inappropriate precedent”.

[An editorial in the same newspaper headlined "Don’t let America give us lessons in justice" contains the following:]

[E]ven if MacAskill’s decision was flawed – and that is surely a subjective opinion – there remains no evidence that BP played any role whatsoever in persuading the Justice Minister to release Megrahi. The Scottish Government has insisted it received no representations from the oil company, and that it had no contact with it. There is no evidence, or indeed any serious suggestion, that is not the case.

There is, however, plenty of evidence that the Westminster Government wanted Megrahi free and that it was lobbied by BP to pave the way for his return to Libya.

It was the Westminster Government – albeit not the present Government – that agreed the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya when Megrahi was the only significant Libyan in a British jail. It was a Westminster Government which specifically agreed not to exclude Megrahi from that agreement. And it was a Westminster Government that decided to agree a strategy of bringing Libya back in from the cold. BP has already admitted lobbying Westminster for a quick conclusion to the prisoner transfer agreement so that trade with Libya could resume. Indeed, a deal between the Libyan government and BP was signed almost immediately after the prisoner transfer agreement was approved. All this is in the public domain. It does not require an inquiry in America to establish these facts.

It was only when it became apparent that Westminister did not have the legal authority to release Megrahi that the matter landed on MacAskill’s desk. Westminster may have officially kept its wishes to itself while MacAskill was making his deliberations but there can be no doubt that it privately wished Megrahi freed. It had already agreed a deal to make that happen.

In the end, MacAskill went against the prisoner transfer agreement but instead decided on compassionate release. It is acceptable to question the wisdom of that decision. It is not acceptable to question MacAskill’s right to make it.

Yet if the events surrounding Megrahi’s death are known, there are many facts about his conviction, and in particular his appeal against that conviction, which remain shrouded in mystery.

By all means we should have an inquiry which would allow the serious doubts about the veracity of the evidence against Megrahi to be aired. But we do not need the inquiry currently being demanded and we do not need America to give us lessons in justice. Alex Salmond is right to have nothing to do with it.

BBC presenter 'speaking nonsense’ over Megrahi release

[This is the headline over a report published this morning on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads in part:]

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has dismissed as “nonsense” a claim by BBC Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler ...

Mr Salmond was appearing on the UK Newsnight programme in order to address attacks from US Senator Robert Menendez. Mr Menendez is one of four senators whose letter to the UK ambassador resulted in the setting up of a Senate Committee hearing into the circumstances leading up to the release.

During the exchanges, broadcast live, Mr Esler appeared to claim that the release had harmed the chances of Scottish independence saying to Mr Salmond: “You would like an independent Scotland, you would like good relations with the United states particularly those 40 million or so who claim some kind of Scottish descent. This one case may have blown it”

Mr Salmond ridiculed the suggestion saying: “I think that’s just such nonsense Gavin, we have good relationships with the United States.”

Mr Salmond underlined the respect that the Scottish government has for all of the victims of Lockerbie who spanned 21 different nationalities. The FM included in that respect the surviving families who themselves were also victims and explained that there were some families in the US who actually agreed with the release.

When asked by Mr Esler whether the Scottish government would be prepared to ‘cooperate’ if senator Menendez were to come to Scotland the First Minister pointed out that the Scottish government were already cooperating where they could and highlighted the refusal of the US and UK administrations to release all documents relating to the case.

Mr Salmond promised that the senator would be extended the courtesy afforded all foreign representatives who visit and revealed that Kenny MacAskill had recently met with a dozen US Congressmen on the subject of Al Megrahi at the request of the American Consul General in Scotland.

However the First Minister made it clear that no Scottish Minister would be compelled to attend - and have judgement passed on them by - a committee controlled by another nation. Mr Salmond highlighted the United States refusal to attend inquiries into the ‘friendly fire’ deaths of UK servicemen, the ‘extraordinary rendition’ where people were spirited through UK airports by the CIA for torture and inquiries into Guantanamo bay.

Mr Esler suggested that US suspicions that the release was related to a BP oil deal were justified saying: “BP wanted drilling in Libya, Libya wanted Megrahi, You release Megrahi, BP gets drilling rights.”

Mr Esler added: “There was some lobbying by the LBBC of which BP is a part, you can understand why American senators, meaning no disrespect to the Scottish or British governments think there’s something deeply fishy about this”

This was addressed by Mr Salmond who explained that the lobbying on behalf of LBBC had been carried out by a Tory politician. The request had been rejected out of hand by Kenny MacAskill who had explained firmly to the Tory peer that business interests would play no part in the decision on Mr Megrahi.

The First Minister went on to suggest that if the senator was truly interested in Libyan oil deals negotiated on behalf of BP then the person to ask would be the man who was part of the negotiations - Tony Blair. Mr Salmond explained that the signing of the BP oil deal took place, not as the BBC presenter had suggested after the release of Mr Megrahi, but two years before on the same day that Tony Blair met with Libyan leader Col Gadaffi.

Mr Salmond also highlighted the silence from both the then Westminster opposition and indeed US senators when the SNP exposed Tony Blair’s secret ‘deal in the desert’.

The Al-Megrahi release: one year later

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Obama, Cameron tread cautiously on BP, Lockerbie

British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday rejected calls for an inquiry into whether BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, even as he sought to ease transatlantic tensions in talks with US President Barack Obama.

Determined not to let the Lockerbie controversy and BP's role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill overshadow their White House meeting, the two leaders reaffirmed the much-vaunted "special relationship" between their countries.

Cameron said he understood US anger over BP's role in the spill and tried to defuse US lawmakers' concerns that the company may have had a hand in Scottish authorities' release last year of a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

But Cameron, under pressure at home to stand up for the British energy giant against the bashing it has faced in Washington, also insisted it was in US and British interests for the company to remain strong and viable.

Obama, whose approval ratings have been undercut by public outrage over the spill ... also played down the simmering controversy over the Lockerbie case.

"I completely understand the anger that exists right across America. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a catastrophe," Cameron told reporters as he stood side by side with Obama in his first US visit since taking power in May.

"It is BP's role to cap the leak, clean up the mess and pay appropriate compensation," Cameron said.

But he also cautioned, "Let us not confuse the oil spill with the Libyan bomber."

Cameron insisted BP had no role in the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, which he opposed at the time as opposition leader, and pledged his government's aid in any US Senate probe into the matter.

Steering clear of any public disagreement, Obama said he was confident the British government would cooperate to make sure all the facts are known.

In an apparent bid to assuage US concerns, Cameron ordered his Cabinet secretary to review documents in the case and met US lawmakers on the issue on Tuesday.

But he rejected in advance their demands for a full British investigation. "I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision," Cameron said.

New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, one of four senators who met Cameron, said they were in agreement Megrahi should not have been released but that did not mean "case closed."

"Only with complete information about the circumstances surrounding al-Megrahi's release can we get the full understanding that is needed to determine the next steps," Menendez said in a statement after the meeting.

Menendez, who will chair a hearing next week on the release, also said Cameron gave assurances his government would cooperate with requests from the Senate.

[From a report on the website of the Reuters news agency.]

Salmond hits back at Lockerbie inquiry jibe

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper circulating primarily in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. It reads in part:]

The first minister has hit back at accusations a US senate hearing into the release of the Lockerbie bomber was “stonewalled” and said senators should focus on getting information from their own government. (...)

Senator Robert Menendez, who was due to chair the hearing into the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, said “no witness of consequence has the courage” to testify.

Mr Salmond said yesterday he and Mr MacAskill had a “responsibility to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people”, but added they would give evidence at an international inquiry if it had the “authority and power” to summon every witness and collect every document related to Megrahi’s release. (...)

Speaking in Aberdeen yesterday, Mr Salmond said Scottish ministers could not give evidence on something they “knew nothing about”.

He said: “We cannot help Senator Menendez with the inquiry into BP’s influence on Mr Megrahi’s release, because BP had no influence. There was no contact, formal or informal, between the Scottish Government and BP.”

He added the Scottish Government has “given every facility” to senators, and said: “If I was a senator I would concentrate on getting all the documents relevant to Mr Megrahi’s case from the UK and US governments. From there they might be better placed to consider another hearing.

“Otherwise, I am sure Senator Menendez acknowledges what was said by Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the committee, when he said our replies to the committee have been thoughtful and thorough.

“If there were to be a properly constituted, all-encompassing and internationally-based inquiry with the authority and power to requisition all documents and summon all witnesses we would be happy to co-operate.

“The US Senate is a powerful body, but it is not an international tribunal.”

Lockerbie: US demands Libya co-operation

[This is the headline over a report published last night on the Sky News website.  It reads in part:]

US officials are threatening to block the unfreezing of Libyan assets without more cooperation from rebels over the Lockerbie bombing. 

Senators are introducing the Pan Am 103 Accountability Act because of concerns Libya's rebel government is not serious about helping the US investigate the atrocity.

Senator for New Jersey, Robert Menendez, told Sky News the rebels seem to be changing their attitude on the issue in a worrying way.

"From the comments and commitments that were made to me and others to the comments that I have read subscribed to the TNC, it makes me concerned that they may not want to be co-operative," Mr Menendez said.

The move threatens to sour relations between Libya's new government and the US from the outset.

Senator Menendez was one of the senators leading efforts to approve US action against Colonel Gaddafi. (...)

He is demanding that American investigators are given access to Abdelbaset al Megrahi - who was convicted for the Lockerbie bombing and released on humanitarian grounds because he was believed to be dying of cancer.

But he believes there are many others in Libya who have vital information about the outrage.

He says Libya's rebels are talking the talk about cooperating on the issue but not delivering in concrete terms (...)

Transitional government Justice Minister, Mohammed al Alagi, told journalists in Tripoli: "We will not hand over any Libyan citizen. It was Gaddafi who handed over Libyan citizens," he said, referring to the government's decision to turn al Megrahi over to a Scottish court for trial. [RB: Gaddafi did not "hand over" Megrahi and Fhimah for trial. Libyan law does not permit the extradition of its own citizens for trial overseas. Megrahi and Fhimah voluntarily surrendered for trial.]

He said the request by American senators had "no meaning" because al Megrahi had already been tried and convicted.

For Sen Menendez read Joe McCarthy

[This is the heading over a letter from John Edwards in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

So United States Senator Robert Menendez believes there is a “cloud of suspicion” hanging over the medical reports that led to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (“Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision”, August 20). Just how far is Menendez going in his attempts to sully Scotland’s legal system, and his intereference in Scottish sovereignty?

And the US government wants Mr Megrahi returned to prison, because after a year in which he has no doubt been receiving the very best medical attention, he is still alive.

The American vengeance machine rolls on. This whole affair increasingly has echoes of the McCarthyism era in the United States in the 1950s, when free thinking liberals were put on trial for “un-American” activities.

The difference now is that it is not individuals being accused, but the Scottish nation and our government.

Now we learn that the Central Intelligence Agency had evidence that could have changed the course of the Camp Zeist trial, but was not presented. Why?

The stench of hypocrisy grows stronger by the day.

[A letter from James S MacDonald in The Scotsman reads as follows:]

With regards to your reports and letters over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, for the first time in my life, I plan to vote SNP at the next election. The reason being I was pleased with our First Minister for standing up to that vindictive race of people who live across the Atlantic.

I don't recall an inquiry when the Americans shot down an Iranian airliner full of innocent people. Nor do I hear them showing remorse for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by their troops.

Perhaps the reason that Megrahi has survived longer than the prognosis is that the Libyan medical system is superior to ours.

Senate postpones BP-Lockerbie hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Herald's report contains the following:]

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

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

[The report in The Independent includes the following:]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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