Mueller's Megrahi outburst remembered as he leaves FBI

[A long appreciation of Robert Mueller on the website of the Washingtonian, on the day that he demits office as Director of the FBI, contains the following paragraph:]

In the summer of 2009, Mueller became the most vocal US opponent of the release by the Scottish government of Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only person imprisoned for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 — a case Mueller had originally helped oversee at the Justice Department under President George H W Bush. Megrahi was greeted as a hero on the tarmac in Libya after being released on “compassionate grounds” by the Scots as part of health concerns that, based on newly released documents, seem to have been more about helping British firms access Libya’s oil reserves. Amid a series of tepid official condemnations — President Obama labeled it “highly objectionable” — Mueller’s letter to Scottish minister Kenny MacAskill stood out. Far from an official missive of the state to a fellow government official, Mueller’s letter was personal and heartfelt, written by a man not prone to public rebukes. As he wrote, “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed, your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world.”

[The full text of Mr Mueller’s foolish and intemperate letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice can be read here.]

The architect of the cover-up of the Lockerbie bombing

[What follows is the text of a letter from Professor Francis A Boyle published today on the World Socialist Web Site:]

And be sure to add to your list of FBI cover-ups since 9/11/2001 the FBI covering up the DOD/CIA origins of the anthrax attacks in October 2001. See my book Biowarfare and Terrorism (2005). The retiring FBI Director Mueller was also the architect of the cover-up of the Lockerbie bombing, blaming Libya instead of whoever the real culprits were: see my book Destroying Libya and World Order (2013).  I would recommend your readers have a look at Swearingen, FBI Secrets (South End Press). There the author, a retired and decorated FBI agent, repeatedly calls the FBI “an American Gestapo.” The FBI/CIA also put me on all the US government’s terrorist watch lists when I refused to become an informant for them on my Arab and Muslim clients. QED.

Secret summit between Scots law chief and Libyan PM over Lockerbie bombing

[This is the headline over a report, labeled “exclusive”, published on the Daily Record website on 16 June. It reads in part:]

Scotland’s top law officer has met the Libyan PM in secret to speed up the Lockerbie bombing probe.

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland held talks in London with Abdurahim el-Keib last month.

It followed another summit between the two and FBI chief Robert Mueller in Tripoli in April.

The recent London meeting was not publicised at the time for security reasons.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the bombing, died at his home in Libya on May 20.

Last night, a Crown Office spokesman said: “The investigation into the involvement of others with Megrahi in the Lockerbie bombing remains open and the Crown is working with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and US authorities to pursue available lines of inquiry.

“In April, at a meeting in Tripoli, the Lord Advocate expressed his desire to the Libyan prime minister that there will be a positive response to his request for co-operation and inter-national letter of request.

“At a further meeting with the Lord Advocate in London in May, the Libyan prime minister asked for clarification on issues relating to the conduct of the proposed investigation in Libya. The Lord Advocate has undertaken to provide this.” (…)

The spokesman added: “The prime minister made it clear that he recognised the seriousness of this crime and following the clarification he would take this forward as a priority.

“As the investigation remains live, and in order to preserve its integrity, it would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”

Megrahi was freed from Greenock jail in August 2009 on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The intelligence officer always denied any responsibility for the bombing, the deadliest terror incident on UK soil.

[This story appeared in The Herald and on this blog on 25 May. So much for Daily Record exclusives!]

Lockerbie: 'We need the truth'

[This is the headline over an article published on 7 June in the Exeter Express and Echo.  It reads in part:]

The father of an Exeter schoolgirl killed in the Lockerbie disaster is continuing his fight for the full truth to come out after the death of the only man so far convicted of the bombing. (...)

[Melina Hudson] was flying home for the Christmas break after spending the term at Exeter School as part of an exchange programme. (...)

Melina's father Paul Hudson, who spoke exclusively to the Echo from his Florida home, has been a leading campaigner seeking justice for his daughter and the other victims.

Mr Hudson, who is the president of the Families of Pan Am 103 group, expressed hope that with Megrahi and former Libyan dictator Gaddafi both now dead, the authorities will reveal the truth behind the atrocity.

He said: "As the Lord Advocate (Frank Mulholland) and the FBI Director (Robert Mueller) have travelled to Libya and presented a letter requesting Libyan government co-operation, I am hopeful that, with appropriate pressure by the US and UK, the investigation can finally go forward.

"The Libyans have promised to co-operate on several occasions but have never followed through and until now have never been pressed.

"Megrahi has been implicated by new evidence after the trial but his defenders only mention the evidence they claim casts doubt on his conviction, and did not present sufficient evidence to reverse the guilty verdict according to two appeal decisions. [RB: I am not aware of any new evidence implicating Megrahi after his trial. Only one appeal decision in the case was ever issued. The limitations under which that appeal court operated are explained in this article, section headed “The Appeal”.]

"Without vigorous pursuit of the investigation now that Gaddafi is gone, not only will justice not be done and the truth not come out, but the integrity of the UK, Scottish and US justice systems will be sullied with allegations of corruption, manipulation and the manufacturing of evidence."

Hopes of finding the truth may now rest with a group of people in Libya previously close to the Gaddafi regime.

One is interim president, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, a former Gaddafi justice minister, who has claimed he has evidence Gaddafi ordered the bombing.

Another target could be Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted.

Attention could also return to Abdullah Senussi, Gaddafi's brother-in-law and security chief. Mr Senussi is currently under arrest in Mauritania, awaiting extradition proceedings – either to Libya, or The Hague, where he has been indicted on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court.

Mr Hudson added: "Libya should defer to the US criminal investigation. US support was key to Gaddafi being overthrown. Senussi now has every reason to co-operate with US investigators in naming names of those involved in the Lockerbie bombing and potentially avoiding extradition to Libya."

Former Lord Advocate Boyd on Libya and Lockerbie

[There was a debate on the situation in Libya in the House of Lords on Friday, 1 April. The contribution of former Lord Advocate Lord Boyd of Duncansby (Colin Boyd) as reported in Hansard (starting on column 1496) was as follows:]

Lord Boyd of Duncansby: My Lords, as Lord Advocate I prosecuted the Lockerbie trial. I mention that not to claim any great insight into the present situation in Libya. Nor do I claim that the focus of attention should be on that one horrific incident, although I can at least bear witness to the horror of one aspect of Gaddafi's terrorism. The priority has to be the protecting of the civilian population, while ensuring a transition to a democratic state founded on the rule of law and respecting human rights. Thereafter, there are any number of criminal offences that should be addressed.

I mention Lockerbie because it has been central to our relations with Libya over the past two decades and more, and because the trial has some lessons for us in the pursuit of justice and the rule of law. Before I go any further, I say that I am speaking strictly for myself as it is four and a half years since I have been in the Crown Office and had any contact with any of the evidence. Megrahi was convicted of the murder of 270 people: 259 on Pan Am 103 and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie. Scottish terms of conviction and indictment also narrate certain factors which go along with the conviction. In this case, Megrahi was convicted while acting along with others, who were unnamed. Moussa Koussa's defection to the United Kingdom and his connection to Lockerbie have been much commented on in the past 24 hours. From my knowledge, which I emphasise is elderly, he is a "person of interest". I am pleased that the Prime Minister has acceded to the Crown Office's request that prosecutors and police should have access to him. However, he is no more than that. No warrant has been issued for his arrest, and there are others who would also be of interest. That should be borne in mind, and I say no more on the matter.

The other aspect of the conviction was that Megrahi was acting in furtherance of the aims and objectives of the JSO, the Libyan intelligence services, so the court was satisfied of the culpability of the Libyan state for what happened, acting through the agency of its intelligence service. The conviction was important in bringing to justice one of the people who was responsible for that atrocity. The trial was innovative both in being in the Netherlands and in the adaptations that were made for that purpose. I pay particular tribute to the late, lamented Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary who was particularly important to that, and to the Foreign Office, which set it up.

Thereafter, the road becomes somewhat trickier. I choose my words carefully: there were times, more than once, when I had the strong impression that Megrahi's conviction was seen as an inconvenience and an impediment to developing relations with Libya.

I acknowledge that the rapprochement was significant and important because it led to the renunciation by Gaddafi of weapons of mass destruction. Other claims that were made for it, such as the provision of intelligence on al-Qaeda, I take with, frankly, a little more scepticism, particularly as Gaddafi is now claiming that virtually everyone who is involved in the rebellion is motivated by al-Qaeda. However, the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement, in the expectation-and, I suspect, the hope-that it would lead to the return of Megrahi to Libya, was an error of judgment. It was in the face of an agreement with the United States that, if convicted, he would remain in Scotland and serve his sentence there, and, importantly, of commitments that were given to American relatives-often through me, acting, as I believed at the time, on the advice of the Government of the day.

The announcement of the enhanced judicial co-operation, which included a commitment to the prisoner transfer agreement, at the same time-and I think in the same press release-as the contracts for BP, did nothing to dispel the impression that we were prepared to compromise on our principles of justice. This, along with the eventual return of Megrahi, undermined the confidence of the United States and of American relatives in our commitment to justice on this issue. One has only to have regard to the letter from Robert Mueller to the Justice Minister in Scotland, Kenny MacAskill, to understand the depth of anger that was provoked. I remind the House that if, and I stress "if", there were to be any prospect of any new trial arising out of the Lockerbie incident, or possibly on other matters that need US co-operation, that co-operation has been put in difficulty as a result of what was done by the British and Scottish Governments. Relations between prosecutors remain good but between Governments they do not.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, might I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? He appears to have overlooked the view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on this matter; it found the conviction unsafe.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby: It did not. It said that there may have been a miscarriage of justice and referred it back to the Appeal Court. Had the appeal gone forward, it would have been the Appeal Court that ruled on that. For myself, I think it was unfortunate that that appeal was withdrawn, since the matter was then not dealt with. However, there now seems to be at least an acceptance that Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

At the end of the trial, Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI, telephoned me. One of the messages that he wanted to give me was that it demonstrated to the world, particularly to the United States, that we can bring justice home to terrorists with patience and international co-operation, and that the US could learn that it did not need a military response. That lesson has been lost or obscured in the aftermath of 9/11, but it is even more relevant now.

We need to bring through a strong commitment to international justice. One of the most powerful of the speeches that I have listened to today was that of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who outlined the reason for that. Through our present mission, we are promoting that international justice. I accept with limitations that we are doing the right thing and that it is legal, but we must go further.

What we have seen and witnessed in Libya is truly shocking: enforced disappearances, beatings, torture, horrific rapes and extrajudicial killings, as well as attacks on civilian populations. Holding people to account for these crimes is of vital importance, and part of that is ensuring that people are brought before the International Criminal Court or other courts as appropriate. It sends out a powerful message, not just to dictators and despots but also to those who chafe under such tyrannical regimes. If we are to build a world where human rights are universally respected, our commitment to those fundamental values must not be waived in the face of expediency.

FOIA lawsuit against FBI regarding Megrahi release

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on January 14th against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain documents related to the United Kingdom’s release last August of convicted terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was serving a life sentence for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Judicial Watch seeks information that will shed light on what role, if any, the United States played in the decision to release al-Megrahi.

On August 20, 2009, the United Kingdom came under heavy fire for releasing the former Libyan intelligence officer from prison on “compassionate grounds” due to the fact al-Megrahi suffers from terminal prostate cancer. The British government also reportedly attempted to include al-Megrahi as part of a prisoner transfer pact signed with Col. Muammer al-Gadaffi’s Libyan government in 2007 in order to help secure oil contracts for British companies.

Al-Megrahi, who received a hero’s welcome upon returning to Libya, was given three months to live at the time of his release. However, now five months after his release, al-Megrahi is reportedly alive and living with his family in Libya. Convicted in 2001, al-Megrahi served only eight years of his life sentence.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on January 14, seeks “all communications with/between the FBI and the United Kingdom concerning the August 20, 2009 release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer who was convicted of 270 counts of murder for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.”

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on September 10, 2009. By law, the FBI was required to respond by October 8, 2009. However, to date, the FBI has not provided any documents responsive to the request, nor has the agency provided an explanation as to why documents must be withheld.

“The decision to release al-Megrahi from prison was an affront to justice and an insult to the families of the victims of the Pan Am tragedy. Al-Megrahi’s release also served to rally terrorists around the world. The American people deserve to know what role, if any, the United States government played in the horrible decision to release a known terrorist from prison. Frankly, I’m concerned the Obama administration did not do enough to prevent this terrorist’s release. The FBI has an obligation to the American people and the victims’ families to release all relevant documents as soon as possible,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

[The above is the text of a press release issued by Judicial Watch. I doubt if there are any FBI documents relating to Megrahi's release, other than the idiotic letter sent by FBI Director Robert Mueller to Kenny MacAskill.]

Lockerbie and the Prime Minister

The BBC News website's report on today's Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons contains the following:

"1223 Tory Daniel Kawcznyski asks about a Lockerbie bombing inquiry. Mr Brown says it is up to the Scottish authorities to pursue any new leads."

The account of the exchange on The Scotsman's website can be read here.

What follows is correspondence between Dr Jim Swire and the Prime Minister.

Letter from Dr Swire
24th August 2009

Dear Prime Minister,

LOCKERBIE

I regret that I have not written to you previously about the Lockerbie disaster. Now I must approach you against the rather dire current events in Scotland.

I had the privilege of meeting Kenny MacAskill during discussions over what he should do. I admire him as a man of integrity who decided on the basis of what he believed was right, within the precepts of Scots law. I note that the Church of Scotland supported Megrahi's repatriation.

He knew he would draw the attention of the lynch mobs.

I believe that by taking an honourable course in conformity with established Scottish law practice (the 3 months to live precedent), he has gained for Scotland an opportunity to shed some of the opprobrium which will descend on her over the way the Lockerbie case has been handled, when the verdict is finally quashed.

What may not have been anticipated is the venom of the onslaught from the USA. The odious Libyan rejoicing must surely have been expected. For the public in both England and Scotland the arrogance with which the USA speaks is deeply resented.

In responding to the letter to MacAskill from Mueller of the FBI (writing from the Department of Justice) I have pointed out one way in which the much vaunted investigation was profoundly deficient. I refer to the break-in at Heathrow which remained concealed for 12 years until after the Megrahi verdict had been reached. This break-in must have been known to Lady Thatcher, since the Met. investigated it, yet the Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew about it. That claim demands further corroboration.

Frankly had that aspect of the case been known to the Zeist court, the trial would have been stopped, or never started in the first place. Unlike Heathrow, where all was documented, there was no evidence led of a security breach at the Malta airport.

This concealment does not implicate the USA, except in as much as one would expect their investigators also to have been aware of it, nor your party. Nor does it promote the purposes of the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed there are strong suggestions that the investigating Scottish police may have known of it and suppressed it. Exposing it would exonerate Libya (and Malta) and so certainly would strengthen the UK's position in Libya's mind and through the Arab world.

It implicates the Downing Street of the day (Lady Thatcher) who compounded her apparent knowledge of what really happened by her claims in 'the Downing Street years' published 2 years after the indictments were issued, where she claims that her support for the Reagan bombing of Tripoli/Bengazi left Gaddafi unable to mount serious terrorist outrages thereafter (Page 449).. Its exposure will be strongly opposed by those civil servants and intelligence people who know it to be true.

In urging you to promote a full inquiry, including the question of suppression of the Heathrow evidence, I hope that the proposal will be seen not as some sort of temptation by the devil, but a way whereby the truth may be approached, MacAskill's decision would be justified, the US forced to climb down, and perhaps most importantly of all, the UK, and Scotland in particular emerge with some credit after all.

With best wishes to you and your family,

(signed) Dr Jim Swire

Reply from the Prime Minister
10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SW1A2AA
23 October 2009

Dear Dr Swire

Thank you for your letter of 24 August.

First of all, I know that nothing I can say will assuage the loss that you and the other family members of the Lockerbie victims will still feel, but I assure you that you have my full sympathy in your loss.

You refer to Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds. As you say, that was a decision to be taken in the Scottish legal system, and I and my colleages were careful to respect the fact that this was Mr MacAskill’s responsibility. Like you however I deplore the unseemly way in which Mr Megrahi was received in Tripoli and I have made this clear publicly.

You seek a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case, to cover in particular certain evidence which you say was concealed from the investigation. I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pa Am flight 103. As you will recognise, that investigation and the subsequent prosecution was the responsibility of the Scottish Police and prosecutors. The evidence that was gathered was tested in court at the original trial in 2001 and on appeal in 2003. I understand that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow to which you refer made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not.

These are matters which the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland considered and upheld. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.

I recognise that this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope you understand why for the reasons I have set out. My thoughts, and those of the Government remain with you and the other families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

Yours sincerely
(signed) Gordon Brown

[It will be noted that the Prime Minister's reply is dated the same day as UK Families-Flight 103 handed in to 10 Downing Street the group's own letter requesting the institution of a full independent inquiry.]

What do US cops know about justice?

[This is the headline over Ian Bell's article in tomorrow's edition of The Sunday Herald. The last section reads as follows:]

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds with three months left to live. The staged celebrations upon his return to Libya anger some people. His appeal against conviction - feasible even for a dead man, but pointless - has already been withdrawn, angering others. Some are desperate for the truth; others suspect a political fix. But America's fury appears boundless.

Consider that. Scottish jurisdiction is not disputed. Nor is it news to Washington that Tony Blair stitched up a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya's Colonel Gaddafi in 2007 when only one Libyan was held in Britain. Nevertheless, Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, rejects that mechanism explicitly. Yet suddenly the whereabouts of the prisoner in the last dozen miserable weeks of his life matters hugely. And the word compassion causes unbridled anger.

Scotland is treated to the thoughts, none kind, of Obama, Hillary Clinton and that dying paragon, Ted Kennedy. MacAskill and Alex Salmond don't raise the possibility that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe. No-one mentions the many efforts expended by Kennedy on behalf of Irish Republicanism.

No-one asks how many Americans were convicted after the USS Vincennes brought down Iran Air flight 655 in 1986 with the loss of 290 lives. Guantanamo, Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, the carnage in Afghanistan: Scotland's government remains circumspect.

Then a cop intervenes. I say "cop"; I mean Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, a man with a shaky grasp of the Scottish system but every confidence in his all-American right to give a foreign government a dressing-down. He's "outraged", says his letter to Caledonia. "Your action makes a mockery of the rule of law," he tells MacAskill. "Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world".

There is little comfort, though, for anyone still harbouring illusions over American attitudes to American power. So now the head of the FBI, an institution with a fascinating history in the civil rights field, is laying down his law to someone else's democracy, to the country that gave the US many of the notions that fleshed out its constitution? Let's say we'll cope.

In other parts, predictably, the Scottish cringe is at work. MacAskill has outraged "the world" ("To reprieve a seriously ill prisoner is an act of humanity" - Frankfurter Allgemeine, Germany). Tourists will scorn us; whisky sales will suffer; and Jack McConnell will have to do penance for our "shame". In other words, we will lose the essential friendship of America thanks to the unforgiveable crime of compassion.

What is that sort of friendship worth? And what sort of friendship is it that loads rights on one side and responsibilities, defined unilaterally, on the other? Does it occur to no-one that some of America's actions have looked rather more heinous lately, and certainly more costly to human life, than a single ministerial decision? All that stirring talk of democracy sounds a little hollow, and not for the first time.

MacAskill might be wrong, and those of us who have agreed with him might turn out to be wrong. I happen to believe Obama is wrong about Afghanistan: how many lives lost so far? But if the minister has erred, what is the nature of the error? You could say - though I do not - that he has been played for a dupe by London and Washington. The motives at work in the larger game stand little scrutiny, as usual. But MacAskill has made a moral choice: imagine. Those can go wrong.

Megrahi, convicted of mass murder, may enjoy a startling recovery. If that happens the justice secretary and several doctors will look very stupid.

They will not become culpable, however, and they will not have deserved the insults that flow from the likes of Mueller. We do things differently. In this regard, I'm certain, we do them better.

It is America's curse that it finds the possibility inconceivable.

[An opinion piece headed "MacAskill’s crime wasn’t to release a murderer but to disobey America" in The Sunday Herald by writer and lawyer Paul Laverty contains the following sentence:

'I suspect MacAskill is castigated not so much for the release a dying man, but because he has refused to obey. US politicians expect their UK and Scottish counterparts to take up automatic poodle position just as Straw and Blair have always done. True to form New Labour in Scotland do the same; they seem more concerned with parochial point scoring or whisky sales in the US than any genuine concern for the understandable feelings of hurt on part of the families of the victims. But the great tragedy revealed by this circus is how we have collectively sacrificed our critical faculties, our sense of history, and replaced them with spineless humiliating subservience to the powerful. MacAskill's decision is a brave exception, but it is a disgrace to see him so cornered while the nauseating hypocrisy of the US goes virtually unexamined.'

An article headed "Freeing the Lockerbie bomber was the right thing to do" on the US website The Presbyterian Outlook by a Florida pastor shows that American reaction to Megrahi's repatriation is not unanimously hostile.

This is also demonstrated in two articles on the Antiwar website entitled "From My Lai to Lockerbie" and "Apologies, Anger, and Apathy" both of which can be read here.]

Stark double standard

[This is the heading over an article in Online Journal by specialist writer on Middle East affairs, Linda S Heard. It reads in part:]

The repatriation to Libya on compassionate grounds of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi has caused a firestorm in Britain and the US.

President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party David Cameron have all expressed their displeasure at the Scottish justice minister’s decision to release the only individual to have been convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller couldn’t resist adding his two cents. He has characterized the release as an act that brings “comfort to terrorists” everywhere and “a mockery of the rule of law.”

Complicating matters further are accusations that Al-Megrahi’s release was a condition for Britain being awarded lucrative oil, gas and hotel contracts, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies. Yet, the Libyan president’s son Seif Al-Islam says the decision to free this terminally ill individual was always tied to trade, while a leaked letter from Downing Street to the Libyan leader makes clear that Al-Megrahi’s homecoming has been brewing ever since the G8 summit held in Italy early in July.

Many Scots believe that their government was set up by Westminster to be Britain’s patsy and are angry that so much enmity is coming their way from across the Atlantic. They may have a point...

... the Libyan authorities are being heavily criticized for giving the returnee a warm welcome. Western politicians and many families of Lockerbie victims consider this shameful, yet Libya has always protested Al-Megrahi’s innocence while ordinary Libyans view him as a loyal son of the soil who sacrificed his freedom for the good of his country. Al-Megrahi has consistently said there has been a miscarriage of justice and says he will release documentation to the British public to prove it now that his appeal has been quashed. If the appeal was heard “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive,” said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Pan Am 103.

Those who are incensed that Al-Megrahi gets to spend his last days with his wife and five children might at least contemplate the possibility that there was, indeed, a miscarriage of justice. Firstly, the case against him was circumstantial and relied heavily upon the testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who said he recognized Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothing in his shop, fragments of which were later found in the incendiary suitcase.

Yet, Gauci was allegedly shown photographs of Al-Megrahi and others prior to the line-up when he failed to identify him. He was then instructed to focus on Al-Megrahi’s picture when he insisted that the person who bought his clothes was much older than the man in the photo. He is also said to have been coached by prosecutors prior to giving testimony and is thought to have been offered millions of dollars in bribes to testify at trial.

When Gauci was first called to Amsterdam for the identification parade he initially said that Al-Megrahi was “not exactly the man I saw in the shop . . .” He also claimed that his buyer was over 6 feet tall whereas Al-Megrahi is much shorter at 5 feet eight inches. (...)

Moreover, a timer, a key piece of the prosecution’s material evidence, is believed to be a fake after Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer, admitted that he lied about its origins. Lumpert also said that the first time he had viewed the timer it had a brown circuit board whereas his former Zurich employer MEBO had only exported green circuit boards to Libya. Yet when the board was produced during the trial Lumpert noticed it was carbonized indicating it had subsequently been tampered with.

Last October, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and identified six grounds for an appeal. One of these grounds may be the fact that some 18 hours prior to the New York bound Pan Am flight taking off, there had been a break-in at Heathrow’s restricted baggage area, which security officials described as a “very deliberate act” by professionals. This evidence of baggage tampering was not disclosed to the defense team prior to Al-Megrahi’s trial.

Surely, even those who doggedly insist upon Al-Megrahi’s culpability must accept that there are certainly strong reasons for doubt. And if justice hasn’t been served, this wouldn’t be the first time that British courts got it wrong. In 1991, the so-called Birmingham Six were released on appeal after serving 16 years in prison while the Guildford Four were jailed for 15 years on a false conviction.

Lastly, if Robert Mueller considers Al-Megrahi’s release “a mockery of the rule of law,” what does he say about another 1988 civil aviation tragedy?

On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 while flying within Iranian air space en route to Dubai. On that day, all 290 passengers and crew were killed, including 66 children. Ship’s Capt William C. Rogers III later said he had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat Fighter (as though there is any resemblance), yet there was no Lockerbie-style trial for him. Instead, he became the commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group.

The US government issued notes of regret but never admitted wrongdoing or gave Iran an apology. To add insult to injury, then US Vice President George H W Bush told the UN that the Vincennes had acted appropriately and dismissed the tragedy as a wartime incident although Tehran and Washington were not at war. And US Ambassador to Britain Charles H Price II actually sent Capt Rogers a congratulatory message, which read “I join other Americans in congratulating you for having done your duty.”

The US did, however, shell out $61.8 million to victim’s families, which is a far cry from the $1.5 billion that Libya was pressured to pay to the Lockerbie families.

The double standard here is extraordinary. Al-Megrahi, who may or may not be responsible for Lockerbie, served years behind bars, is nearing the end, and may never get the opportunity to clear his name. But Capt Rogers, who is definitely culpable for the death of 290 innocents, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was allowed to pursue his career with honor. Where is the international outrage about that?

MacAskill followed the letter of the law

Megrahi's release is controversial. But no one can dispute the central defence for Kenny MacAskill's decision

It was a grim, dogged, desperate defence by the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, of his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Adelbaset al-Megrahi, in order to let him die in Libya with his family. It was one of the most uncomfortable ministerial statements I have ever witnessed. The anguish of this decision, and its aftermath, were etched on MacAskill's face as he restated the legal grounds for what was, arguably, the most controversial decision ever taken by a Scottish minister. At the end, he was still standing – if only just.

As the questioning dragged on, MacAskill's replies became shorter and shorter as his energy flagged and his patience wore out. Only briefly did he revive when the former Labour minister, Malcolm Chisholm, rose to defend him for his "courageous" decision, which he said was "entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland". Chisholm thus disowned the argument of his own leader, Iain Gray, that MacAskill had made "the wrong decision, in the wrong way with the wrong consequences". He would have let Megrahi rot in Greenock jail until he'd breathed his last. (...)

Compassion may not be the first thing people associate with Scots law which, in times past, had a reputation for austere and unforgiving justice. But MacAskill's defence is that he acted in accordance with the laws and values of Scotland – as indeed has been accepted now by No 10 in its statement today. The Scottish justice minister is a lawyer and something of a stickler for "due process" – for following the accepted rules for coming to a legal decision. Prisoners in Scotland, no matter their crime, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. When application has been made, and provided the medical evidence is sound, the justice minister is required to consult key authorities, including the Parole Board, the prison governor and the social work agencies. This he did. All these bodies recommended that Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds.

Of course, in the end, the decision is for the justice minister alone to take, and – as the Labour leader Iain Gray insisted – Kenny MacAskill could have exercised his discretion and refused to release Megrahi, claiming that the severity of his crime meant that it was not in the public interest, here or in America, that a terrorist should be seen to be given clemency. But MacAskill would have had to make a proper argument for this. It would not have been acceptable, for example, to say that for political reasons – to save the Scottish government from embarrassment – Megrahi should be denied compassion. Expediency is not due process.

So MacAskill took the toughest decision of his life and allowed a convicted mass murderer to be released so that he could return in triumph to Tripoli, with saltires flying on the tarmac, and be embraced by Muammar Gaddafi as a national hero. Tough call. I would not have liked to be in his shoes.

Being a lawyer made this a particularly difficult decision for MacAskill to defend, since he resorted to abstract legalistic concepts which seemed remote from the reality of what has happened, and did not connect with the emotional turmoil of the Lockerbie victims' families. He seemed insensitive, robotic, mechanical even as he was professing compassion. But that is rather the style of Scottish law, where levity is frowned upon and emotion avoided.

The argument is the whole of the law. MacAskill has been criticised for failing to keep parliament informed, for unwisely visiting Megrahi in jail, and for not exploring the possibility of the Lockerbie bomber being removed to a hospice in Scotland. But no one successfully challenged MacAskill's central defence that he had acted in accordance with the law.

Will the government fall? No. There may be a vote after parliament resumes next week, but there is no indication that the opposition parties are ready to bring down this minority administration and force an election. They could do this at any time since they have a clear majority of seats, but have no programme and no alternative first minister. Will Kenny MacAskill survive? He has the support of the first minister, his party, and of course Scots law. His decision has been endorsed by some influential voices in Scotland such as the Liberal Democrat Lord Steel, the former presiding officer, who said that the decision was correct under Scots law, and by the former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish. Indeed, it would be perverse for MacAskill to fall as a result of following the letter of the law. No one has suggested he has acted wrongly or outside his powers, or that there could be any legal challenge to what he has done.

The UK government has not challenged MacAskill's decision – whatever the Scottish Labour leader may say – and nor has Gordon Brown personally disowned it. No 10 says that it did not "boost terrorism", rejecting the charge made by the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, yesterday. And it has to be remembered that the process that led to the repatriation of Megrahi was initiated by the British government after the "deal in the desert" in 2007 between Tony Blair and Gadaffi. (...)

The real charge against Kenny MacAskill is that his communication skills are not up to explaining – in terms ordinary people can relate to – exactly why Megrahi has been released. The answer is of course that he is dying, and you cannot punish a dead man. Nor does the Scottish legal system support the principle of the death watch, under which prisoners are incarcerated under observation until legally dead. Others may disagree, and of course many in America believe that Megrahi should have been executed for his crimes. But that is simply the way things are done here. Kenny MacAskill has done his duty, though at immense personal and political cost.

[The above are excerpts from an article on The Guardian Comment is free website by the Scottish political commentator Iain Macwhirter.]

Megrahi’s release: Kenny MacAskill was right

[This is the headline over a recent post on the blog of distinguished Scottish lawyer Jonathan Mitchell QC. The following are extracts:]

If Megrahi was indeed rightly convicted of mass murder, which I doubt, it is not in doubt that he acted on the orders of the Libyan government. He was a senior member of its intelligence service. Yet both the UK and US governments have for some years been on friendly terms with the people who, they say, ordered the desctruction of PanAm 103. They dine with them. They have cocktails with them when they meet at mutual friends. The week before Megrahi’s release, as reported in the Washington Post, a delegation of four American senators led by John McCain met with Colonel Gaddafi to discuss the sale by the US to Libya of military equipment. In April, Hilary Clinton welcomed another member of the Gaddafi family, the régime’s National Security Adviser, to Washington. She said “We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya. We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our cooperation. And I’m very much looking forward to building on this relationship. So, Mr. Minister, welcome so much here.”

There is nothing wrong with prosecuting and jailing the foot-soldiers of terrorism. There is however something deeply wrong with claims that the foot-soldiers should die in prison, because their crimes are so serious, while their commanders should be forgiven, because the identical crimes have no continuing importance and because, as Republican senator Lugar says, “we need to ensure that more Americans are able to travel to Libya to do business“. The families are entitled to resent the release of Megrahi, while recognising that they can do nothing about the attitude of their governments. But British and American politicians are not. They sold this particular pass a long time ago.

When Tom Harris MP asks with such sickening sanctimoniousness “why was he considered for compassionate release when others whose crimes were, arguably, less (in quantative terms only; not in relation to the devastation caused to victims’ families) would almost certainly not be?” he might remember that his government, his party, believe that those whose criminality at least equal to Megrahi- those who gave Megrahi his orders- should be fêted.

When Iain Gray MSP claims, as he no doubt will again tomorrow at Holyrood, that if he’d been Justice Secretary he wouldn’t have released Megrahi*, a claim incidentally that is hard to believe of someone whose relationship with Westminster is that of glove-puppet to hand, he might ask himself how he distinguishes this particular murderer. “While one can have sympathy for the family of a gravely ill prisoner, on balance our duty is to honour and respect the victims of Lockerbie and have compassion for them.” ‘On balance’ indeed! Do we ‘honour and respect‘ them by wining and dining with those who ordered the bombing?

Historically, war criminals gaoled for their crimes have been held until the state holding them has moved on. Erhard Milch was responsible for tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of deaths. In 1947 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1951 that was commuted to fifteen years. In 1954 he was released. A far more serious criminal than Megrahi, he was released because the British and American governments of the day had lost interest. He was not terminally ill; he lived another eighteen years. More recently, the Westminster government released seventy-eight murderers under the Good Friday agreement. Some served only weeks or months. There is no practice in Britain of treating such crimes as the Lockerbie bombing as uniquely disqualifying from compassionate release. In applying well-established principles to this particular prisoner, principles first introduced into our law by a Conservative government, Kenny MacAskill cannot be criticised for failing to follow tradition.

The attack on the release of Megrahi, made by people who turn a blind eye to the cosy UK/US relationship with his line managers, is deeply hypocritical. Thus the call to ‘boycott Scotland’; why not boycott Indiana, for Senator Lugar’s hard work, quoted above, to forge relationships between US and Libyan security? And much of it is just ignorant. FBI Director Robert Mueller, in his much-quoted open letter to MacAskill, obviously intended primarily for US domestic consumption, thought the Justice Secretary was a ‘prosecutor‘. Geoffrey Robertson QC, who ought to know better, writes “I have read the judgment of the Lockerbie court and the two appeal judgments upholding it…” . What second appeal judgment was that? He’s just inventing it; it was never written.

We return to the straightforward facts that Megrahi is terminally ill; he is going home to die. On the undisputed facts, he falls within policy, dating back to the McConnell administration, which provide for compassionate release following the 1993 Act. As Kenny MacAskill’s statement pointed out (and I haven’t seen this description challenged as inaccurate) “guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005“. So he had a legitimate expectation that that policy would be followed. Should that have been lost because Jack McConnell’s buddies don’t want attention to be given to their palling-up to Libya? Can Cathy Jamieson or Jim Wallace, who as justice ministers granted between them over twenty compassionate release applications, point to a single case in which an application for a terminally-ill prisoner was refused on their watch? I doubt it. (...)

Kenny MacAskill has been a fine Justice Secretary. The case against him is a failure to participate in hypocrisy and dishonesty, and that may be evidence of a lack of political realism. But good for him. He did the right thing for the right reasons.

*In fact what Iain Gray seems to be saying is that if he were First Minister he would have given unconstitutional orders to the Justice Secretary not to do so.

Ministers defend Megrahi release

The Scottish government has defended its decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, amid mounting criticism on both sides of the Atlantic.

It follows an attack by the head of the FBI, who said freeing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi made a "mockery of justice". (...)

The Scottish Government said last night the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had reached his conclusions on the basis of Scotland's "due process, clear evidence, and the recommendations from the parole board and prison governor".

The comments came in response to a letter from Robert Mueller, chief of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, who said the action made a "mockery of the rule of law" and "gave comfort to terrorists".

Mr Mueller is a former prosecutor who played a key role in investigating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people. (...)

But in its statement, the Scottish government said: "The US authorities indicated although they were opposed to both prisoner transfer and compassionate release, they made it clear they regarded compassionate release as far preferable to the transfer agreement, and Mr Mueller should be aware of that.

"Mr Mueller was involved in the Lockerbie case, and therefore has strong views, but he should also be aware that while many families have opposed Mr MacAskill's decision many others have supported it."

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

Letter to Kenny MacAskill from FBI Director Robert S Mueller

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.

And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of "compassion."

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion."

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases a full career - to see justice done.

But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988.

You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution.

You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification - the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.

You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.

Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to "the need for compassion."

You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.

You have given Megrahi a "jubilant welcome" in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III
Director

[Note by RB: On 6 August 2009, The Times published a report containing the following:

"The investigating officers who led the original inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have made an unprecedented intervention in the case to argue against the release of the Libyan convicted of the attack.

"In a letter to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish police chief and the FBI boss who led the international investigation 20 years ago launch a powerfully worded plea against the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is serving a minimum sentence of 25 years for his part in the bombing.

"In the letter obtained by The Times, Stuart Henderson, the retired senior investigating officer at the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre, and Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent in charge of the US taskforce, whose detective work helped to convict Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, insist that he is guilty. They also argue that his release would “nullify the dedicated work of dozens of law enforcement and intelligence officials around the world”."

It is therefore untrue for the Director to suggest that the decision was taken without regard to, or in ignorance of, the views of the investigators (or at least some of them). His complaint (if he has one at all) therefore has to be that the ultimate decision was not one that they approved of.

In civilised countries decisions regarding liberation of prisoners are not placed in the hands of policemen and prosecutors, nor are they accorded a veto over those decisions. Mr Mueller (and Mr Marquise) would probably wish that this were otherwise. The rest of us can be grateful that it is not.]