[A long article by Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, appears today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It raises many interesting issues about the recent report by Senator Robert Menendez et al into the repatriation of Abdebaset Megrahi and about official reaction to JFM's call for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into his conviction. On the Scottish Government's stonewalling on the establishment of such an inquiry, Mr Forrester has this to say:]
SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.
On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.
It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off.
Showing posts sorted by date for query menendez. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query menendez. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Wednesday 29 December 2010
Tuesday 28 December 2010
Two contrasting perspectives
In today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle there is an article by conservative columnist Debra J Saunders headlined "Libya, Lockerbie and commercial warfare". It swallows hook, line and sinker the fantasies peddled by Senator Menendez et al in their report on the release of Megrahi.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Friday 24 December 2010
We must not be afraid to pursue the truth about the bombing of PanAm Flight 103
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
Wednesday 22 December 2010
'Bonkers' US claim on bomber
[This is the headline over the report in The Sun on the four US senators' report on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
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.]
More shameless politicking
Senator to unveil finding of Scotland's release of Pan Am bomber
Sen Robert Menendez will unveil Tuesday the results of his office's investigation into the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi.
The results are expected on the 22nd anniversary of the bombing, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground.
Al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last year on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months. But Menendez has asserted he is not terminally ill.
The lawmaker said he undertook the investigation after British and Scottish officials refused to testify at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing he was scheduled to chair in July.
[The above is the opening section of a report just published on the CNN ebsite.]
Sen Robert Menendez will unveil Tuesday the results of his office's investigation into the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi.
The results are expected on the 22nd anniversary of the bombing, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground.
Al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last year on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months. But Menendez has asserted he is not terminally ill.
The lawmaker said he undertook the investigation after British and Scottish officials refused to testify at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing he was scheduled to chair in July.
[The above is the opening section of a report just published on the CNN ebsite.]
Sunday 28 November 2010
Wikileaks data contains "significant Lockerbie material"
[This is the heading over a report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Firm has learned that "significant" case materials relating to the Pan Am 103 debacle are among the 3 million sensitive documents scheduled to be released by the Wikileaks site in the next 24 hours.
Sources close to the UK Government who have had access to the material have briefed The Firm ahead of their release, although the precise nature of the materials has not been disclosed.
On Friday the United States Government alerted its allies through diplomatic channels to forewarn them of the details of some of the materials that they anticipated would be amongst the leaked material. (...)
It is reported this morning that the UK government has issued a Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) to editors not to publish or broadcast extracts from leaks of sensitive US cables that relate to issues of national security, and that David Cameron’s office has confirmed that the US ambassador Louis Susman has briefed the government on what might be contained in the files.
[Given the period covered by the US State Department cables, I remain of the view that the only material in the documents relevant to Lockerbie will be material relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation to Libya. They will contain nothing relating to the circumstances of the investigation, prosecution and trial.
I like the following comment from the For Argyll website:]
And what will the coming Wikileaks revelations tell us about American conduct behind the scenes in the Al Megrahi affair? Will the pompous publicity hound, Senator Robert Menendez be discombobulated? We can’t wait.
The Firm has learned that "significant" case materials relating to the Pan Am 103 debacle are among the 3 million sensitive documents scheduled to be released by the Wikileaks site in the next 24 hours.
Sources close to the UK Government who have had access to the material have briefed The Firm ahead of their release, although the precise nature of the materials has not been disclosed.
On Friday the United States Government alerted its allies through diplomatic channels to forewarn them of the details of some of the materials that they anticipated would be amongst the leaked material. (...)
It is reported this morning that the UK government has issued a Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) to editors not to publish or broadcast extracts from leaks of sensitive US cables that relate to issues of national security, and that David Cameron’s office has confirmed that the US ambassador Louis Susman has briefed the government on what might be contained in the files.
[Given the period covered by the US State Department cables, I remain of the view that the only material in the documents relevant to Lockerbie will be material relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation to Libya. They will contain nothing relating to the circumstances of the investigation, prosecution and trial.
I like the following comment from the For Argyll website:]
And what will the coming Wikileaks revelations tell us about American conduct behind the scenes in the Al Megrahi affair? Will the pompous publicity hound, Senator Robert Menendez be discombobulated? We can’t wait.
Wednesday 3 November 2010
Spinner accuses Scottish Government of spinning
[What follows is the text of a press release dated 1 November from Senator Robert Menendez.]
Scottish government authorities today revealed that Abdelset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had a 50% chance of living longer than the three month prognosis and that the three month figure was an estimate or “median survival time” rather than al Megrahi’s life expectancy (Click here for news report: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/government-admits-megrahi-always-had-50-50-chance-of-living-past-three-months-1.1064925). Senator Menendez released the following statement in response:
“Scottish authorities are engaged in revisionist history to try to explain the embarrassing fact that al-Megrahi is still alive well over a year after his release. Their recent admission shows that they ignored the Scottish Prison Service guidelines for compassionate release. We know from expert testimony that it was absurd to think al-Megrahi had three months to live when he was released. Every month that goes by makes the Scottish and British decision to release a mass murderer on compassionate grounds more egregious. This is a tragedy no matter how hard they try to spin this story.”
Scottish government authorities today revealed that Abdelset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had a 50% chance of living longer than the three month prognosis and that the three month figure was an estimate or “median survival time” rather than al Megrahi’s life expectancy (Click here for news report: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/government-admits-megrahi-always-had-50-50-chance-of-living-past-three-months-1.1064925). Senator Menendez released the following statement in response:
“Scottish authorities are engaged in revisionist history to try to explain the embarrassing fact that al-Megrahi is still alive well over a year after his release. Their recent admission shows that they ignored the Scottish Prison Service guidelines for compassionate release. We know from expert testimony that it was absurd to think al-Megrahi had three months to live when he was released. Every month that goes by makes the Scottish and British decision to release a mass murderer on compassionate grounds more egregious. This is a tragedy no matter how hard they try to spin this story.”
Saturday 16 October 2010
Salmond hits back at Senate on Megrahi 'misinformation'
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond told John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, that despite attempts by the Scottish Government to set the record straight, “misinformation” was still given to the hearing looking into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
While not participating in the hearing, the Scottish Government moved behind the scenes to deny allegations Megrahi had been on chemotherapy in Scotland and that his prognosis was made by a primary care physician who did not have the expertise to determine how advanced his prostate cancer was.
But the claims were still put to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and medical experts speaking at the Senate forum accepted he was undergoing chemotherapy and argued that would never have justified a three-month prognosis.
Mr Salmond said a letter intended to “set the record straight” had been passed to Senator Robert Menendez before he led the hearing.
It explained that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy while on Scottish soil and that the Libyan’s prognosis came from “the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service”, its director of health and care, Dr Andrew Fraser.
Mr Salmond said: “It was therefore with intense disappointment that I noted that the same misinformation was presented to the hearing, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and no reference was made to the correction provided well in advance by the Scottish Government.
“The Scottish Government has made every effort to provide members of the US Senate and their staff with information to assist their understanding of the matter, and it is extremely unfortunate that the concerns that I expressed in my letter of September 10, 2010 ... about the prospects for a credible and impartial investigation, have been realised.
“I should therefore be grateful if you would investigate, as a matter of urgency, how the committee came to be misled in this manner at its hearing.”
Alex Salmond told John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, that despite attempts by the Scottish Government to set the record straight, “misinformation” was still given to the hearing looking into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
While not participating in the hearing, the Scottish Government moved behind the scenes to deny allegations Megrahi had been on chemotherapy in Scotland and that his prognosis was made by a primary care physician who did not have the expertise to determine how advanced his prostate cancer was.
But the claims were still put to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and medical experts speaking at the Senate forum accepted he was undergoing chemotherapy and argued that would never have justified a three-month prognosis.
Mr Salmond said a letter intended to “set the record straight” had been passed to Senator Robert Menendez before he led the hearing.
It explained that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy while on Scottish soil and that the Libyan’s prognosis came from “the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service”, its director of health and care, Dr Andrew Fraser.
Mr Salmond said: “It was therefore with intense disappointment that I noted that the same misinformation was presented to the hearing, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and no reference was made to the correction provided well in advance by the Scottish Government.
“The Scottish Government has made every effort to provide members of the US Senate and their staff with information to assist their understanding of the matter, and it is extremely unfortunate that the concerns that I expressed in my letter of September 10, 2010 ... about the prospects for a credible and impartial investigation, have been realised.
“I should therefore be grateful if you would investigate, as a matter of urgency, how the committee came to be misled in this manner at its hearing.”
Friday 1 October 2010
Row sparks new Megrahi records call
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
The clash between the Scottish Government and US Senators has prompted fresh calls for the release of the medical records of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Labour and Tory justice spokesmen said the contradictory claims of Senator Robert Menendez and the Scottish Government had to be cleared up.
The Scottish Government has accused Mr Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of making factual errors after he accused Scottish ministers of “intentionally skewing” the reasons for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and intervening in the medical diagnosis.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Within due channels of accountability we have been as helpful as possible to the senator, certainly going further than the UK Government or any other group in terms of being helpful.
“We were the only organisation that gave the senator’s staffer the courtesy of a meeting, which others refused.”
After the meeting, the American official reported back that Megrahi had been receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer while in Greenock Prison and that the three-month prognosis of how long he had to live had been signed off by a GP.
The spokesman rejected both claims, adding that it was “a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point”. (...)
Tory justice spokesman John Lamont said: “There is a gaping contradiction between the words of the US Senate Committee and the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.
“Either Mr Megrahi was receiving more medical treatment, so far undisclosed, or he wasn’t. The only way to deal with this is to publish the medical reports.”
Labour spokesman Richard Baker said: “The difference between the Senate’s representatives’ view of their meeting and the Government’s view is mutually exclusive and does not get us any nearer to why Megrahi was actually released.
“Only the full publication of the medical evidence will get to the bottom of this.”
The Scottish Government spokesman said it had 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”.
[The same newspaper publishes two letters on the subject. They read as follows:]
It seems the mantra in the Labour Party these days is: “It’s history … move on.” We heard it at the Manchester conference: New Labour is “history … move on”; Tony Blair and Iraq are “history … move on”; Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the financial mess are “history … move on”.
It is surprising, therefore, that word of this does not seem to have percolated down to their Scottish justice spokesman, Richard Baker, who continues to give ammunition to, or ingratiate himself with, the US Senate committee investigating the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi , by querying the professional opinions of the Scottish doctors and cancer specialists whose prognosis of Megrahi’s advanced condition led to his compassionate release.
If they can say of the calls for an appeal against Megrahi’s dubious conviction: “It’s history … move on,” why, then, can Mr Baker not follow apparent Labour Party policy on the Megrahi release?
Perhaps he needs to read it in black and white. “It’s history, Mr Baker … move on.”
Donnie MacNeill, Livingston.
I hear the US senators are now describing the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as “incredibly flawed, if not purposefully manipulated”.
Ironically, that seems to describe the original conviction almost perfectly.
Morag Kerr, Peeblessshire.
The clash between the Scottish Government and US Senators has prompted fresh calls for the release of the medical records of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Labour and Tory justice spokesmen said the contradictory claims of Senator Robert Menendez and the Scottish Government had to be cleared up.
The Scottish Government has accused Mr Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of making factual errors after he accused Scottish ministers of “intentionally skewing” the reasons for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and intervening in the medical diagnosis.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Within due channels of accountability we have been as helpful as possible to the senator, certainly going further than the UK Government or any other group in terms of being helpful.
“We were the only organisation that gave the senator’s staffer the courtesy of a meeting, which others refused.”
After the meeting, the American official reported back that Megrahi had been receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer while in Greenock Prison and that the three-month prognosis of how long he had to live had been signed off by a GP.
The spokesman rejected both claims, adding that it was “a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point”. (...)
Tory justice spokesman John Lamont said: “There is a gaping contradiction between the words of the US Senate Committee and the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.
“Either Mr Megrahi was receiving more medical treatment, so far undisclosed, or he wasn’t. The only way to deal with this is to publish the medical reports.”
Labour spokesman Richard Baker said: “The difference between the Senate’s representatives’ view of their meeting and the Government’s view is mutually exclusive and does not get us any nearer to why Megrahi was actually released.
“Only the full publication of the medical evidence will get to the bottom of this.”
The Scottish Government spokesman said it had 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”.
[The same newspaper publishes two letters on the subject. They read as follows:]
It seems the mantra in the Labour Party these days is: “It’s history … move on.” We heard it at the Manchester conference: New Labour is “history … move on”; Tony Blair and Iraq are “history … move on”; Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the financial mess are “history … move on”.
It is surprising, therefore, that word of this does not seem to have percolated down to their Scottish justice spokesman, Richard Baker, who continues to give ammunition to, or ingratiate himself with, the US Senate committee investigating the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi , by querying the professional opinions of the Scottish doctors and cancer specialists whose prognosis of Megrahi’s advanced condition led to his compassionate release.
If they can say of the calls for an appeal against Megrahi’s dubious conviction: “It’s history … move on,” why, then, can Mr Baker not follow apparent Labour Party policy on the Megrahi release?
Perhaps he needs to read it in black and white. “It’s history, Mr Baker … move on.”
Donnie MacNeill, Livingston.
I hear the US senators are now describing the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as “incredibly flawed, if not purposefully manipulated”.
Ironically, that seems to describe the original conviction almost perfectly.
Morag Kerr, Peeblessshire.
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."
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.]
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.]
Wednesday 29 September 2010
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.]
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.]
Senate asks why Lockerbie bomber was freed
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of The Wall Street Journal. It reads in part:]
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a long-awaited hearing Wednesday that aims to find out why Scotland last year gave a controversial "compassionate release" to cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
But the session may only widen the gulf between US politicians demanding a more detailed medical explanation of how Mr Megrahi won his freedom and Scottish officials who are declining to provide one.
A Senate staffer's fact-finding trip to Britain this month appears to have produced even more conflict between the US and Scotland, particularly surrounding the details of Mr Megrahi's prognosis and the question of whether he began chemotherapy treatments before or after he was released by the Scots.
The Senate staffer met with George Burgess, who was Scotland's deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing at the time of Mr Megrahi's release. According to an aide to Sen Robert Menendez, (D, NJ), the senator who is heading the hearing, Mr Burgess said the convicted bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland. According to the aide, the Scottish official also said it was Peter Kay, Mr Megrahi's general practitioner in the Scottish prison system, who issued the prognosis that Mr Megrahi had about three months to live—a guideline prisoners must meet to qualify for compassionate release in Scotland. That prognosis was later sanctioned by Scottish Prison Service medical administrator Andrew Fraser. The hearing stands to address both those assertions on Wednesday, the aide said.
Scotland, however, says that isn't an accurate portrayal of what was said in the meeting. Mr Burgess couldn't be reached to comment.
"It is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point," a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said in an email Tuesday. She added that "the responsibility to provide a reasonable estimate of prognosis was Dr Fraser's—no one else's—and therefore the prognosis was his." The spokeswoman didn't say whether Dr Kay agreed to the prognosis, or made it initially. (...)
Mr Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, said he didn't feel comfortable divulging details of his client's medical treatment. Despite the haggling between the US and Scotland over when the chemotherapy began and which doctor made the prognosis, the issue of Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy—which had been discussed around the time of his release—has added weight to the Senate's call for the release of the medical documents.
One of the primary points of inquiry for the Senate is Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy treatment, the aide to Sen Menendez said. Doctors normally wouldn't administer chemotherapy to a patient seen to be three months from death, experts have said.
Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government are sending representatives to testify at the hearing. Nor is BP plc, which has at times been accused of influencing the decision to release Mr. Megrahi to advance its oil interests in Libya. The Senate committee has said it will explore "the possible influence of commercial interests" on Mr Megrahi's release.
BP has said it lobbied to speed the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya ratified in spring 2009. But the oil giant's involvement in the Megrahi case has so far been a moot point. Though Mr Megrahi applied to be transferred under that agreement last year, his application was rejected; instead, he went free thanks to a separate application under Scottish law's provision for compassionate release.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a long-awaited hearing Wednesday that aims to find out why Scotland last year gave a controversial "compassionate release" to cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
But the session may only widen the gulf between US politicians demanding a more detailed medical explanation of how Mr Megrahi won his freedom and Scottish officials who are declining to provide one.
A Senate staffer's fact-finding trip to Britain this month appears to have produced even more conflict between the US and Scotland, particularly surrounding the details of Mr Megrahi's prognosis and the question of whether he began chemotherapy treatments before or after he was released by the Scots.
The Senate staffer met with George Burgess, who was Scotland's deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing at the time of Mr Megrahi's release. According to an aide to Sen Robert Menendez, (D, NJ), the senator who is heading the hearing, Mr Burgess said the convicted bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland. According to the aide, the Scottish official also said it was Peter Kay, Mr Megrahi's general practitioner in the Scottish prison system, who issued the prognosis that Mr Megrahi had about three months to live—a guideline prisoners must meet to qualify for compassionate release in Scotland. That prognosis was later sanctioned by Scottish Prison Service medical administrator Andrew Fraser. The hearing stands to address both those assertions on Wednesday, the aide said.
Scotland, however, says that isn't an accurate portrayal of what was said in the meeting. Mr Burgess couldn't be reached to comment.
"It is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point," a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said in an email Tuesday. She added that "the responsibility to provide a reasonable estimate of prognosis was Dr Fraser's—no one else's—and therefore the prognosis was his." The spokeswoman didn't say whether Dr Kay agreed to the prognosis, or made it initially. (...)
Mr Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, said he didn't feel comfortable divulging details of his client's medical treatment. Despite the haggling between the US and Scotland over when the chemotherapy began and which doctor made the prognosis, the issue of Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy—which had been discussed around the time of his release—has added weight to the Senate's call for the release of the medical documents.
One of the primary points of inquiry for the Senate is Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy treatment, the aide to Sen Menendez said. Doctors normally wouldn't administer chemotherapy to a patient seen to be three months from death, experts have said.
Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government are sending representatives to testify at the hearing. Nor is BP plc, which has at times been accused of influencing the decision to release Mr. Megrahi to advance its oil interests in Libya. The Senate committee has said it will explore "the possible influence of commercial interests" on Mr Megrahi's release.
BP has said it lobbied to speed the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya ratified in spring 2009. But the oil giant's involvement in the Megrahi case has so far been a moot point. Though Mr Megrahi applied to be transferred under that agreement last year, his application was rejected; instead, he went free thanks to a separate application under Scottish law's provision for compassionate release.
Tuesday 28 September 2010
Lockerbie and the senators
[In the context of tomorrow's session of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the release of Mr Megrahi, I think it worthwhile to share the contents of a letter sent by Dr Jim Swire on 28 July 2010 to The Herald but never published.]
In April 1991, before Mr Megrahi had even been indicted, Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of the investigating Scottish police was on Malta, and went to interview Vincent Vassallo, manager of the airport cafe at Luqa airport (Malta).
On page 7642 of the publicly available trial transcripts, in giving his evidence Vassallo says:
"What I remember is that when they came to my office, Harry Bell asked me -- he said 'Try to remember well. You know there is a large reward, and if you wish to have more money, perhaps go abroad somewhere, you can do so.'"
So potential monetary rewards seem to have figured in the process from before even the issue of the indictments against Fhima and Megrahi which occurred at the end of 1991, and of course long before the actual trial.
Harry Bell was keeping a diary, but its contents were not divulged to the court, since he had 'left it in Glasgow', though its existence was known to the court, nor was the above allegation from Vassallo taken up by the defence nor the judges.
The contents of the Bell diaries are now in the public domain on the web. They show that DCI Bell was aware of the US reward offers of $10,000 dollars 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow, and that Gauci, the key Maltese shopkeeper witness had become increasingly aware that money was on offer. The FBI officers involved in the case, according to Bell, did not record what role, if any, they had played in the reward scenario. The US organisation 'Rewards for Justice' however records Mr Megrahi's name as someone brought to 'justice' by their payments.
I had hoped to persuade Senator Kerry [Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has, however, delegated the role in relation to the Megrahi issue to Senator Robert Menendez] to raise his sights to the question of whether Megrahi really was guilty or not. That sadly has not happened, but seems rather more important than attempting to link BP to Megrahi's compassionate release.
However perhaps the senators could re-ignite their inquiry by arranging to pay each of those they wish to interview a similar amount for flying over to give evidence to them, though for senior British poIiticians or BP CEOs they might have to request a good deal more money from their 'Rewards for Justice' source, than was on offer to a humble Maltese shopkeeper.
Man, think of the deep-fried Mars bars you could get for that sort of money.
According to my father's edition (1933) of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of a bribe is " A reward given to pervert the judgment or corrupt the conduct (1535)", but then I don't think there were any senators around in 1535 were there?
Seriously, the situation is that whether the senators wish to address the issue of guilt or not, someone must do so and Scotland has a problem.
Our SCCRC found that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, yet by withdrawing the second appeal, which had been authorised by the SCCRC's findings, Mr Megrahi has effectively blocked the obvious route to a full and honest re-examination of the whole case, since the defence materials remain his property.
We must find a route to re-assess the validity of the verdict, that route must depend on a rigorous reappraisal, under the highest standards of Scots law, but on neither politicians nor bribery.
Justice and truth are beyond price.
In April 1991, before Mr Megrahi had even been indicted, Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of the investigating Scottish police was on Malta, and went to interview Vincent Vassallo, manager of the airport cafe at Luqa airport (Malta).
On page 7642 of the publicly available trial transcripts, in giving his evidence Vassallo says:
"What I remember is that when they came to my office, Harry Bell asked me -- he said 'Try to remember well. You know there is a large reward, and if you wish to have more money, perhaps go abroad somewhere, you can do so.'"
So potential monetary rewards seem to have figured in the process from before even the issue of the indictments against Fhima and Megrahi which occurred at the end of 1991, and of course long before the actual trial.
Harry Bell was keeping a diary, but its contents were not divulged to the court, since he had 'left it in Glasgow', though its existence was known to the court, nor was the above allegation from Vassallo taken up by the defence nor the judges.
The contents of the Bell diaries are now in the public domain on the web. They show that DCI Bell was aware of the US reward offers of $10,000 dollars 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow, and that Gauci, the key Maltese shopkeeper witness had become increasingly aware that money was on offer. The FBI officers involved in the case, according to Bell, did not record what role, if any, they had played in the reward scenario. The US organisation 'Rewards for Justice' however records Mr Megrahi's name as someone brought to 'justice' by their payments.
I had hoped to persuade Senator Kerry [Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has, however, delegated the role in relation to the Megrahi issue to Senator Robert Menendez] to raise his sights to the question of whether Megrahi really was guilty or not. That sadly has not happened, but seems rather more important than attempting to link BP to Megrahi's compassionate release.
However perhaps the senators could re-ignite their inquiry by arranging to pay each of those they wish to interview a similar amount for flying over to give evidence to them, though for senior British poIiticians or BP CEOs they might have to request a good deal more money from their 'Rewards for Justice' source, than was on offer to a humble Maltese shopkeeper.
Man, think of the deep-fried Mars bars you could get for that sort of money.
According to my father's edition (1933) of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of a bribe is " A reward given to pervert the judgment or corrupt the conduct (1535)", but then I don't think there were any senators around in 1535 were there?
Seriously, the situation is that whether the senators wish to address the issue of guilt or not, someone must do so and Scotland has a problem.
Our SCCRC found that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, yet by withdrawing the second appeal, which had been authorised by the SCCRC's findings, Mr Megrahi has effectively blocked the obvious route to a full and honest re-examination of the whole case, since the defence materials remain his property.
We must find a route to re-assess the validity of the verdict, that route must depend on a rigorous reappraisal, under the highest standards of Scots law, but on neither politicians nor bribery.
Justice and truth are beyond price.
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?]
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?]
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.]
Tuesday 14 September 2010
Justice officials to meet US senate team over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
Monday 13 September 2010
First Minister's letter to US Senators
[What follows is the text of the First Minister's most recent letter to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand and Schumer.]
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Sunday 12 September 2010
Alex Salmond accuses US Lockerbie bomber inquiry of lacking credibility
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)