[The following are excerpts from a column by Michael Binyon in The Times.]
Lord Mandelson, embarrassed by the Libyan insistence that al-Megrahi’s release was explicitly mentioned in talks on oil and gas contracts, insists that any such linkage was wrong, implausible and “actually quite offensive”.
He is wrong. It is by no means implausible. Realpolitik has always been a deciding factor in international negotiations. (...)
Of course such deals are offensive. Of course any linking of Lockerbie to Western oil interests is a dreadful insult to those still mourning their family members, friends and loved ones. But let no one think this would be the first such deal or even the first compromise over Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity.
From the start, politics have intervened. The fingers of suspicion after the Pan Am explosion in December 1988 pointed first to Iran. Only five months earlier an Iranian passenger jet was mistakenly shot down by the US warship Vincennes with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew. Compensation was paid. But the exact circumstances were never fully explained. Iran’s closest ally at the time was Syria, another country on the US terrorist watch-list. Syria had tried bombing an airliner before — and the bomber was caught before he boarded the El Al jet in Britain.
Intelligence information is not lacking. But after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the US needed Syria, and to a lesser extent Iran. The investigation instead seized on a lead pointing to Libya, possibly as terrorist subcontractors. That would prove politically easier to pursue.
For the sake of those relatives who have always questioned a sole Libyan responsibility, there must now be a full judicial inquiry. If this embarrasses Scottish justice, too bad. Courts have delivered unsafe verdicts before. The intelligence information, all of it, must come out. We may still never know who ordered the atrocity. But thanks to the bungling in Edinburgh, we have no mechanism for an inquiry — even if an angry America could now be persuaded to take part in one. What a tragedy.
Tuesday 25 August 2009
MacAskill to survive as MSPs back off key vote
[This is the headline over David Maddox's report on yesterday's Scottish Parliament sitting in today's issue of The Scotsman. The following are excerpts.]
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is set to survive the storm of controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber after it emerged that opposition parties had backed off from a vote of no confidence [when the Parliament reconvenes next week].
MSPs have privately admitted they cannot agree on a such a move, The Scotsman has learned, despite indications over the weekend that they might be willing to see the Scottish Government fall over the issue. (...)
A debate has now been scheduled for next week, when it is likely that Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will join together to show that Mr MacAskill's decision was not supported by the majority of the parliament.
They believe this may go some way to repair the international damage done to Scotland's image. However, they will not force a no-confidence vote. (...)
While there was no sign of American fury over the decision to free Megrahi dissipating, leading figures in civic Scotland rallied to the beleaguered Mr MacAskill's defence.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland issued statements to say he had done the right thing.
Archbishop of Glasgow Mario Conti said: "I personally, and many others in the Catholic community, admired the decision to release al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion.
"The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed, in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength."
The Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk's church and society council, said: "This decision speaks to the world about what it is to be Scottish. One of the key defining marks of a nation is how it treats those who have chosen to hurt it."
There was political support for the justice secretary from outwith his own party. Former Labour first minister Henry McLeish, who is a friend of Mr MacAskill, gave his backing to the decision.
And former presiding officer and Liberal leader Lord David Steel said: "I think most opinion in Scotland is in favour of the decision to release him on compassionate grounds."
In the Holyrood chamber, Labour MSP and former minister Malcolm Chisholm broke ranks with his colleagues and attacked his own leadership over the "politicisation" of the decision. There was also support from the Greens.
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is set to survive the storm of controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber after it emerged that opposition parties had backed off from a vote of no confidence [when the Parliament reconvenes next week].
MSPs have privately admitted they cannot agree on a such a move, The Scotsman has learned, despite indications over the weekend that they might be willing to see the Scottish Government fall over the issue. (...)
A debate has now been scheduled for next week, when it is likely that Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will join together to show that Mr MacAskill's decision was not supported by the majority of the parliament.
They believe this may go some way to repair the international damage done to Scotland's image. However, they will not force a no-confidence vote. (...)
While there was no sign of American fury over the decision to free Megrahi dissipating, leading figures in civic Scotland rallied to the beleaguered Mr MacAskill's defence.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland issued statements to say he had done the right thing.
Archbishop of Glasgow Mario Conti said: "I personally, and many others in the Catholic community, admired the decision to release al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion.
"The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed, in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength."
The Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk's church and society council, said: "This decision speaks to the world about what it is to be Scottish. One of the key defining marks of a nation is how it treats those who have chosen to hurt it."
There was political support for the justice secretary from outwith his own party. Former Labour first minister Henry McLeish, who is a friend of Mr MacAskill, gave his backing to the decision.
And former presiding officer and Liberal leader Lord David Steel said: "I think most opinion in Scotland is in favour of the decision to release him on compassionate grounds."
In the Holyrood chamber, Labour MSP and former minister Malcolm Chisholm broke ranks with his colleagues and attacked his own leadership over the "politicisation" of the decision. There was also support from the Greens.
FBI chief cannot grasp the Christian ethos
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows.]
The United States has no provision in its justice system for compassion for those found guilty. As a result, it must be difficult for the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, to understand that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was acting in keeping with an established precedent under Scots law to sanction release when the death of a prisoner is imminent.
It is unprecedented for Mr Mueller, the FBI chief, to castigate the Justice Secretary of another sovereign nation for an action which complied with Scotland's law, taking account of humanity and mercy.
That Scotland does not have the death penalty, unlike the US, was one of the spurs that propelled me to visit Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, after the indictments on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were issued to ask him to allow his citizens to attend trial under Scots law. I feel vindicated that Megrahi is at least back home with his family, alive
My country, Scotland, is Christian and I believe Mr MacAskill's decision chimed with the Christian principle of attempting to extend love and mercy, even to one's presumed enemies. It is a tough doctrine to embrace if you believe the man to have been guilty, but easier for those of us who suspect the verdict was wrong. The Church of Scotland has publicly supported Megrahi's return to his family, whether guilty or not. And Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow says showing mercy is not a sign of weakness. To be honest, I cannot be sure I would have the compassion to do that if I believed him guilty. Mr MacAskill's was by far the harder choice.
By a humbler standard, I cannot understand how forcing Megrahi to die in prison when there was provision to extend him mercy could make anyone feel better. Since when have two wrongs made a right?
It is clear that Mr MacAskill, contrary to Mr Mueller's allegations, acted with great care in talking to and listening to those directly affected by the Lockerbie atrocity, including the American families. It is also untrue to state, as Mr Mueller does, that the Justice Secretary's action "makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy".
I regret deeply that continuing our search for the truth endangers the "certainty" so many relatives, especially in the US, have concerning Megrahi's conviction. But to search for the truth over so grave a matter does not constitute mockery.
It is clear that Mr Mueller has an interest in defending the evidence which his agency and his country's CIA played so great a part in garnering after the bombing. Mr Mueller should realise that a number of open-minded and observant relatives, as well as many others who have studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the verdict should not have been reached.
We welcomed Megrahi's second appeal and were aware that many feared its outcome. Yet in the shadow of death, Megrahi, who wants above all else to clear his name, decided to withdraw his appeal. He hoped this would increase the likelihood of his return to his family to die. What would you, dear reader, have done?
As relatives, we want to find the truth of why our families were not protected, despite timely warnings, and who killed them. I would be grateful if Mr Mueller could answer me this question: if it turns out that the verdict is wrong and that the real terrorists are not only free but aware that the evidence for a Libyan crime was fatally flawed, does that cause more harm to the "fight against terror" than freeing a dying man to spend his last days with his family?
We must wait to see what Megrahi's defence can produce. Let us hope it doesn't take another 12 years for the answers. The search for the truth will not go away. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has found grounds for suspecting there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Compassion for Megrahi is welcome in some quarters. It might be that withdrawal of Megrahi's second appeal, which had proceeded at a glacially slow pace, will actually speed up the search for the truth. That is my hope.
[The New York Times today carries a report on the subject of Mr Megrahi's compassionate release headlined "Fury grows over release of Lockerbie convict". It can be read here.]
The United States has no provision in its justice system for compassion for those found guilty. As a result, it must be difficult for the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, to understand that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was acting in keeping with an established precedent under Scots law to sanction release when the death of a prisoner is imminent.
It is unprecedented for Mr Mueller, the FBI chief, to castigate the Justice Secretary of another sovereign nation for an action which complied with Scotland's law, taking account of humanity and mercy.
That Scotland does not have the death penalty, unlike the US, was one of the spurs that propelled me to visit Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, after the indictments on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were issued to ask him to allow his citizens to attend trial under Scots law. I feel vindicated that Megrahi is at least back home with his family, alive
My country, Scotland, is Christian and I believe Mr MacAskill's decision chimed with the Christian principle of attempting to extend love and mercy, even to one's presumed enemies. It is a tough doctrine to embrace if you believe the man to have been guilty, but easier for those of us who suspect the verdict was wrong. The Church of Scotland has publicly supported Megrahi's return to his family, whether guilty or not. And Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow says showing mercy is not a sign of weakness. To be honest, I cannot be sure I would have the compassion to do that if I believed him guilty. Mr MacAskill's was by far the harder choice.
By a humbler standard, I cannot understand how forcing Megrahi to die in prison when there was provision to extend him mercy could make anyone feel better. Since when have two wrongs made a right?
It is clear that Mr MacAskill, contrary to Mr Mueller's allegations, acted with great care in talking to and listening to those directly affected by the Lockerbie atrocity, including the American families. It is also untrue to state, as Mr Mueller does, that the Justice Secretary's action "makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy".
I regret deeply that continuing our search for the truth endangers the "certainty" so many relatives, especially in the US, have concerning Megrahi's conviction. But to search for the truth over so grave a matter does not constitute mockery.
It is clear that Mr Mueller has an interest in defending the evidence which his agency and his country's CIA played so great a part in garnering after the bombing. Mr Mueller should realise that a number of open-minded and observant relatives, as well as many others who have studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the verdict should not have been reached.
We welcomed Megrahi's second appeal and were aware that many feared its outcome. Yet in the shadow of death, Megrahi, who wants above all else to clear his name, decided to withdraw his appeal. He hoped this would increase the likelihood of his return to his family to die. What would you, dear reader, have done?
As relatives, we want to find the truth of why our families were not protected, despite timely warnings, and who killed them. I would be grateful if Mr Mueller could answer me this question: if it turns out that the verdict is wrong and that the real terrorists are not only free but aware that the evidence for a Libyan crime was fatally flawed, does that cause more harm to the "fight against terror" than freeing a dying man to spend his last days with his family?
We must wait to see what Megrahi's defence can produce. Let us hope it doesn't take another 12 years for the answers. The search for the truth will not go away. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has found grounds for suspecting there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Compassion for Megrahi is welcome in some quarters. It might be that withdrawal of Megrahi's second appeal, which had proceeded at a glacially slow pace, will actually speed up the search for the truth. That is my hope.
[The New York Times today carries a report on the subject of Mr Megrahi's compassionate release headlined "Fury grows over release of Lockerbie convict". It can be read here.]
Monday 24 August 2009
MacAskill defends decision as rivals fail to land blows
[This is the headline over the principal report in Tuesday's edition of The Herald on the Scottish Parliament's sitting to hear the Justice Secretary's statement on his decision to grant Abdelbaset Megahi compassionate release. The following are excerpts.]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill claimed yesterday that a child killer had been among prisoners freed on compassionate grounds by the previous Holyrood administration, as he defended his handling of the Megrahi decision under pressure from MSPs.
He told the emergency session of parliament that Libya had reneged on a promise to keep the arrival of Megrahi a low-key affair, but he made a pledge to MSPs that he was looking to publish as much correspondence and documents about the affair as possible - including notes of his controversial meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison.
He also revealed that in advising him against moving Megrahi from prison to a residence outside, the police had said the security implications would be severe, requiring the use of 48 officers.
While few blows were landed on Mr MacAskill during questions from opponents, Labour did suffer a blow of their own when former minister Malcolm Chisholm undermined his leader Iain Gray by coming resolutely to the defence of last week's decision.
Mr Chisholm said: "Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland."
He added that, although the scenes that greeted Megrahi's return had caused "revulsion", there was nothing that anyone here could have done to stop that and it was irrelevant to the original decision. (...)
Conservative leader Annabel Goldie told MSPs: "If Mr Megrahi's condition is so severe that keeping him in prison is inhumane, why could he not have been released to a secure house or a hospice or a hospital in Scotland?
"Is this SNP government seriously suggesting that our Scottish Police who coped so admirably with security for G8 leaders could not adequately protect Mr Megrahi?
"I know he said in his statement that it would take 48 police officers to look after Mr Megrahi in Scotland. That is a small price to pay for just a few weeks. Scotland's reputation on the world stage is worth far more."
But Mr MacAskill pointed to advice from the police that "the security implications of such a move would be severe" and he added that it was a "ludicrous idea to suggest we could send Mr Megrahi to a hospice and turn that into a travelling circus."
He later replied to a similar question from Labour's Karen Gillon, saying: "I was not prepared to foist the encumbrance of Mr al Megrahi on any hospice in Scotland requiring to deal with the terminally ill in their last moments. That would be unfair on any of them. I and I alone - ruled that out."
Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken accused Scottish ministers of naivety and inexperience in international affairs, resulting in them becoming pawns in a bigger game, while Patrick Harvie of the Greens argued that in the long run it was vital that questions were answered about the safety of the Lockerbie conviction, the way it was obtained, and the process behind the release.
While he welcomed Mr MacAskill's pledge to release as much material as possible, he said it was unacceptable that the UK Government was not prepared to promise the same stance.
[Another article in the same newspaper, headlined "Only the French have faced so much wrath from the US" contains the following:
'The furore caused by his decision to show clemency to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi left Scotland's Justice Secretary facing worldwide scrutiny and, from the United States, a level of criticism seldom directed towards its allies.
'Only the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", as Groundskeeper Willie in The Simpsons once labelled the French for refusing to join the US coaliton in Iraq, have come anywhere close in recent years to receiving the level of abuse being hurled at Kenny MacAskill.
'But as he faced his domestic critics in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, it was as much a test of them as Mr MacAskill himself.
'Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott have never had to make - and are never likely to have to make - such a judgment.
'For the past few days, they've been able to have a free go at him. Yesterday, posturing had to be replaced by sharp questions if their criticisms of him were to remain credible.
'What passes for forensic interrogation in the Scottish Parliament did not rise above its usual standard, though the format of one question and no opportunity for a follow-up did not help.'
A further article under the headline "Brown under fire over ‘cowardly silence’" deals with the growing criticism of the Prime Minister's silence on the issue.]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill claimed yesterday that a child killer had been among prisoners freed on compassionate grounds by the previous Holyrood administration, as he defended his handling of the Megrahi decision under pressure from MSPs.
He told the emergency session of parliament that Libya had reneged on a promise to keep the arrival of Megrahi a low-key affair, but he made a pledge to MSPs that he was looking to publish as much correspondence and documents about the affair as possible - including notes of his controversial meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison.
He also revealed that in advising him against moving Megrahi from prison to a residence outside, the police had said the security implications would be severe, requiring the use of 48 officers.
While few blows were landed on Mr MacAskill during questions from opponents, Labour did suffer a blow of their own when former minister Malcolm Chisholm undermined his leader Iain Gray by coming resolutely to the defence of last week's decision.
Mr Chisholm said: "Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland."
He added that, although the scenes that greeted Megrahi's return had caused "revulsion", there was nothing that anyone here could have done to stop that and it was irrelevant to the original decision. (...)
Conservative leader Annabel Goldie told MSPs: "If Mr Megrahi's condition is so severe that keeping him in prison is inhumane, why could he not have been released to a secure house or a hospice or a hospital in Scotland?
"Is this SNP government seriously suggesting that our Scottish Police who coped so admirably with security for G8 leaders could not adequately protect Mr Megrahi?
"I know he said in his statement that it would take 48 police officers to look after Mr Megrahi in Scotland. That is a small price to pay for just a few weeks. Scotland's reputation on the world stage is worth far more."
But Mr MacAskill pointed to advice from the police that "the security implications of such a move would be severe" and he added that it was a "ludicrous idea to suggest we could send Mr Megrahi to a hospice and turn that into a travelling circus."
He later replied to a similar question from Labour's Karen Gillon, saying: "I was not prepared to foist the encumbrance of Mr al Megrahi on any hospice in Scotland requiring to deal with the terminally ill in their last moments. That would be unfair on any of them. I and I alone - ruled that out."
Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken accused Scottish ministers of naivety and inexperience in international affairs, resulting in them becoming pawns in a bigger game, while Patrick Harvie of the Greens argued that in the long run it was vital that questions were answered about the safety of the Lockerbie conviction, the way it was obtained, and the process behind the release.
While he welcomed Mr MacAskill's pledge to release as much material as possible, he said it was unacceptable that the UK Government was not prepared to promise the same stance.
[Another article in the same newspaper, headlined "Only the French have faced so much wrath from the US" contains the following:
'The furore caused by his decision to show clemency to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi left Scotland's Justice Secretary facing worldwide scrutiny and, from the United States, a level of criticism seldom directed towards its allies.
'Only the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", as Groundskeeper Willie in The Simpsons once labelled the French for refusing to join the US coaliton in Iraq, have come anywhere close in recent years to receiving the level of abuse being hurled at Kenny MacAskill.
'But as he faced his domestic critics in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, it was as much a test of them as Mr MacAskill himself.
'Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott have never had to make - and are never likely to have to make - such a judgment.
'For the past few days, they've been able to have a free go at him. Yesterday, posturing had to be replaced by sharp questions if their criticisms of him were to remain credible.
'What passes for forensic interrogation in the Scottish Parliament did not rise above its usual standard, though the format of one question and no opportunity for a follow-up did not help.'
A further article under the headline "Brown under fire over ‘cowardly silence’" deals with the growing criticism of the Prime Minister's silence on the issue.]
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.]
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.]
Statement from Eddie MacKechnie, solicitor
I am very pleased that Baset has gone home to his wife, family and friends. I strongly believe both Lamin, my original client, and Baset are entirely innocent and thus victims.
To me Baset is a hero and deserved any hint of a hero's welcome he was allowed. He went with Lamin to Holland over 10 years ago expecting justice and never got it. He took the risk for his country and he was welcomed as a hero of his people not because he was ever a terrorist but because he is a son of Libya who suffered for her.
Of course I am sad he abandoned his Appeal he fought so very hard to obtain but I know he had no choice. Politics long usurped any role justice had to play.
The Justice Minister was right to release Baset. It was a decent decision. It was to be expected that as Minister he would support the conviction and laud the Judiciary, Prosecution and Police. It was striking he did not mention another Scottish, statutory body. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Had he forgotten their findings in favour of Baset and a new Appeal?
The inconvenient truth of this shocking case is that all is far from well within the Scottish legal system and sick to the core in scheming Whitehall. Pressurising a dying man, so desperate to return home, into dropping his legitimate appeal was beneath contempt but at least consistent. To suggest there was no such pressure is preposterous.
[Note: Eddie MacKechnie successfully defended Lamin Khalifa Fhimah at the Lockerbie trial in Camp Zeist.
He acted for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi from 2002-2005 and was responsible for the submission to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review commission which was successful.]
To me Baset is a hero and deserved any hint of a hero's welcome he was allowed. He went with Lamin to Holland over 10 years ago expecting justice and never got it. He took the risk for his country and he was welcomed as a hero of his people not because he was ever a terrorist but because he is a son of Libya who suffered for her.
Of course I am sad he abandoned his Appeal he fought so very hard to obtain but I know he had no choice. Politics long usurped any role justice had to play.
The Justice Minister was right to release Baset. It was a decent decision. It was to be expected that as Minister he would support the conviction and laud the Judiciary, Prosecution and Police. It was striking he did not mention another Scottish, statutory body. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Had he forgotten their findings in favour of Baset and a new Appeal?
The inconvenient truth of this shocking case is that all is far from well within the Scottish legal system and sick to the core in scheming Whitehall. Pressurising a dying man, so desperate to return home, into dropping his legitimate appeal was beneath contempt but at least consistent. To suggest there was no such pressure is preposterous.
[Note: Eddie MacKechnie successfully defended Lamin Khalifa Fhimah at the Lockerbie trial in Camp Zeist.
He acted for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi from 2002-2005 and was responsible for the submission to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review commission which was successful.]
The proceedings in the Scottish Parliament
FBI chief's attack 'out of order'
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
Former Scottish First Minister Henry McLeish has described comments by the FBI chief on the Lockerbie bomber's release as "totally out of order".
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill freed terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds on Thursday.
FBI director Robert Mueller said the decision gave "comfort to terrorists".
Mr McLeish said it was an unfair slur on the Scots justice system. A former lord advocate said it was "appalling". (...)
However, Henry McLeish said Mr Mueller's intervention was "totally out of order".
"Let's as Scots, despite the adversity, be conscious that it is Scotland and our criminal justice system which holds its head high throughout the world," he told BBC Radio Scotland.
"It doesn't help if some ill-informed remarks are made by the director of the FBI towards that when it's, quite frankly, none of his business.
"It would be the equivalent of the Metropolitan Police chief writing to Barack Obama to complain about a decision that has been made.
"He has a view - fine - but that was a slur on the Scottish justice system that we didn't deserve as part of the wider debate."
He said there was a different culture in the United States which "did not see any scope for compassion" in its criminal justice system.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, the former chief prosecutor who launched the case against the Lockerbie bomber, also hit back at Mr Mueller's attack.
He told The Courier newspaper: "As a former lord advocate I'm quite appalled that the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, should have set his face so openly against Scotland." (...)
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman also dismissed the claims, saying: "I don't see how anyone can argue this has has given succour to terrorists." (...)
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church in Scotland has voiced its support for Mr MacAskill's decision.
The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, said: "I personally, and many others in the Catholic community, admired the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion which is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland's government should operate.
"The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness.
"Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength.
"Despite contrary voices I believe it is a decision which will be a source of satisfaction for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community."
Former Scottish First Minister Henry McLeish has described comments by the FBI chief on the Lockerbie bomber's release as "totally out of order".
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill freed terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds on Thursday.
FBI director Robert Mueller said the decision gave "comfort to terrorists".
Mr McLeish said it was an unfair slur on the Scots justice system. A former lord advocate said it was "appalling". (...)
However, Henry McLeish said Mr Mueller's intervention was "totally out of order".
"Let's as Scots, despite the adversity, be conscious that it is Scotland and our criminal justice system which holds its head high throughout the world," he told BBC Radio Scotland.
"It doesn't help if some ill-informed remarks are made by the director of the FBI towards that when it's, quite frankly, none of his business.
"It would be the equivalent of the Metropolitan Police chief writing to Barack Obama to complain about a decision that has been made.
"He has a view - fine - but that was a slur on the Scottish justice system that we didn't deserve as part of the wider debate."
He said there was a different culture in the United States which "did not see any scope for compassion" in its criminal justice system.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, the former chief prosecutor who launched the case against the Lockerbie bomber, also hit back at Mr Mueller's attack.
He told The Courier newspaper: "As a former lord advocate I'm quite appalled that the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, should have set his face so openly against Scotland." (...)
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman also dismissed the claims, saying: "I don't see how anyone can argue this has has given succour to terrorists." (...)
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church in Scotland has voiced its support for Mr MacAskill's decision.
The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, said: "I personally, and many others in the Catholic community, admired the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion which is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland's government should operate.
"The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness.
"Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength.
"Despite contrary voices I believe it is a decision which will be a source of satisfaction for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community."
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.
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.
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to 'show his innocence' in autobiography
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times. It reads in part:]
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, is writing his autobiography to “proclaim his innocence” by disclosing new information behind Britain’s deadliest terrorist attack, The Times has learnt.
Abdurrhman Swessi, Colonel Gaddafi’s official envoy to Scotland, disclosed yesterday that al-Megrahi was working on a book that would detail his life behind bars and reveal all he knows about the bombing in 1988 of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people.
The freed bomber’s lawyers had collected evidence for an appeal against his conviction that he dropped last week as a necessary condition to qualify for release on compassionate grounds. The book is expected to be used as al-Megrahi’s platform to argue that he was framed for the crime.
“He’ll be writing a book to proclaim his innocence,” Mr Swessi said from Tripoli during an interview conducted in Arabic. This comes after al-Megrahi said in an interview with The Times last week that he would produce new evidence to the “British and Scottish communities ... and ask them to be the jury”.
Mr Swessi, who was made Libya’s Consul-General in Glasgow to represent the convicted bomber’s interests, emphasised that al-Megrahi would write the book without assistance or intrusion from the Libyan Government.
The only English word used by the envoy during the ten-minute telephone interview was “scapegoat”, a reference to al-Megrahi, whose supporters claim that he was singled out by the West as part of an elaborate international conspiracy. (...)
Asked if he would help al-Megrahi to write the book, Mr Swessi — the closest official to the case, whose role was set up with the intention of lobbying the Scottish government for the bomber’s release — said: “He’s been making notes and will not require any assistance.” (...)
Robert Mueller, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who led the US legal investigation into the Lockerbie massacre, accused the Scottish government of emboldening terrorists by freeing al-Megrahi, the only person to be convicted of the bombing.
Mr Swessi said: “It’s all political talk and it’s meaningless. He deserved to be released because he is innocent, of course. He did not commit the crime. His innocence is well known and the Scottish government knows that very well.”
Mr Swessi insisted that Downing Street had nothing to do with the release. “It was the Scottish who made and delivered on their decision and that’s that,” he said.
“The issue was in the hands of the Scottish government and had nothing to do with anyone else.”
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, is writing his autobiography to “proclaim his innocence” by disclosing new information behind Britain’s deadliest terrorist attack, The Times has learnt.
Abdurrhman Swessi, Colonel Gaddafi’s official envoy to Scotland, disclosed yesterday that al-Megrahi was working on a book that would detail his life behind bars and reveal all he knows about the bombing in 1988 of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people.
The freed bomber’s lawyers had collected evidence for an appeal against his conviction that he dropped last week as a necessary condition to qualify for release on compassionate grounds. The book is expected to be used as al-Megrahi’s platform to argue that he was framed for the crime.
“He’ll be writing a book to proclaim his innocence,” Mr Swessi said from Tripoli during an interview conducted in Arabic. This comes after al-Megrahi said in an interview with The Times last week that he would produce new evidence to the “British and Scottish communities ... and ask them to be the jury”.
Mr Swessi, who was made Libya’s Consul-General in Glasgow to represent the convicted bomber’s interests, emphasised that al-Megrahi would write the book without assistance or intrusion from the Libyan Government.
The only English word used by the envoy during the ten-minute telephone interview was “scapegoat”, a reference to al-Megrahi, whose supporters claim that he was singled out by the West as part of an elaborate international conspiracy. (...)
Asked if he would help al-Megrahi to write the book, Mr Swessi — the closest official to the case, whose role was set up with the intention of lobbying the Scottish government for the bomber’s release — said: “He’s been making notes and will not require any assistance.” (...)
Robert Mueller, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who led the US legal investigation into the Lockerbie massacre, accused the Scottish government of emboldening terrorists by freeing al-Megrahi, the only person to be convicted of the bombing.
Mr Swessi said: “It’s all political talk and it’s meaningless. He deserved to be released because he is innocent, of course. He did not commit the crime. His innocence is well known and the Scottish government knows that very well.”
Mr Swessi insisted that Downing Street had nothing to do with the release. “It was the Scottish who made and delivered on their decision and that’s that,” he said.
“The issue was in the hands of the Scottish government and had nothing to do with anyone else.”
Lockerbie detective: MacAskill was naive
In a dramatic intervention ahead of the justice secretary's statement to the Scottish Parliament today, Stuart Henderson – the retired senior investigating officer at the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre – also said Libya's jubilant celebrations on Thursday following the return of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, had "rubbed salt into the wounds" of the victims' families.
Mr Henderson, a former detective chief superintendent with Lothian and Borders Police, who was brought in to lead the investigation, said: "It was a very unfortunate mistake to make. It should not have been handled that way and I feel sorry for Mr MacAskill's naivety about what has happened.
"We all knew he [Megrahi] would get a hero's welcome when he went back.
"It was distressing to see the Saltires being waved, that was really rubbing salt into the wounds, but that is the Libyans for you. That is how they operate. Gordon Brown should have known this would happen."
Mr Henderson spent four years leading the investigation, which took him to 47 countries. He retired in 1992 after handing over a report to the procurator-fiscal naming Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who was later acquitted. Mr Henderson, 69, and Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent in charge of the US task force, had written to Mr MacAskill urging him not to release Megrahi.
Yesterday Mr Henderson said: "I think the only possible thing was to consider the grief caused to the families involved and to think of the lives of the 270 victims first before thinking about the criminal, who is now unwell."
Conspiracy theorists who insist Megrahi was innocent and that evidence was tampered with "make my blood boil", Mr Henderson said.
"It is an insult to our police officers. It's an insult to the Americans, to the Germans, to the Swiss and the Maltese officers.
"We visited 47 countries in the course of this investigation. We had officers working for four years. People think there is some doubt and they want to know who was behind it and who sponsored it?
"Up until now we have not been able to speak because there was an ongoing appeal and even if you are a retired officer it is not your place. But I would hope now that people will listen. We have nothing to hide. It has been very frustrating listening to all this nonsense.
"As a police officer you don't take sides, you follow the evidence and report what you find and if you don't find enough evidence then you report that. Let's be clear. He was convicted and then he was convicted again after an appeal.
"Are we saying eight Scottish high court judges don't know what they are talking about?"
He was supported yesterday by John Crawford, a fellow detective, who said: "I think the compassion angle was all wrong. It was inevitable that people would use it against the decision he made as it was so obvious that Megrahi did not show one jot of compassion when he cold bloodedly went about his business of killing 270 innocent people."
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.
It is par for the course for anyone who dares to challenge the official explanation of Lockerbie to be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist by those, like Mr Henderson, who have a vested interest in upholding the official version. I am used to it. But what is noteworthy is that such people never mention the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and its six grounds for holding that Mr Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice. One of those grounds was that, on an issue absolutely central to the Zeist court's guilty verdict (the date of purchase in Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb) no reasonable court could have reached the view on the evidence led that it was the date on which Megrahi was on the island.
It is also annoying that responsible journalists let people like Mr Henderson get away with statements like "He was convicted and then he was convicted again after an appeal. Are we saying eight Scottish high court judges don't know what they are talking about?"
These journalists know, because they read this blog, that the reference to eight judges convicting Megrahi is false. Here, as I am weary of saying, is the true position:
The five judges in Megrhi's first appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The factual position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."]
Mr Henderson, a former detective chief superintendent with Lothian and Borders Police, who was brought in to lead the investigation, said: "It was a very unfortunate mistake to make. It should not have been handled that way and I feel sorry for Mr MacAskill's naivety about what has happened.
"We all knew he [Megrahi] would get a hero's welcome when he went back.
"It was distressing to see the Saltires being waved, that was really rubbing salt into the wounds, but that is the Libyans for you. That is how they operate. Gordon Brown should have known this would happen."
Mr Henderson spent four years leading the investigation, which took him to 47 countries. He retired in 1992 after handing over a report to the procurator-fiscal naming Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who was later acquitted. Mr Henderson, 69, and Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent in charge of the US task force, had written to Mr MacAskill urging him not to release Megrahi.
Yesterday Mr Henderson said: "I think the only possible thing was to consider the grief caused to the families involved and to think of the lives of the 270 victims first before thinking about the criminal, who is now unwell."
Conspiracy theorists who insist Megrahi was innocent and that evidence was tampered with "make my blood boil", Mr Henderson said.
"It is an insult to our police officers. It's an insult to the Americans, to the Germans, to the Swiss and the Maltese officers.
"We visited 47 countries in the course of this investigation. We had officers working for four years. People think there is some doubt and they want to know who was behind it and who sponsored it?
"Up until now we have not been able to speak because there was an ongoing appeal and even if you are a retired officer it is not your place. But I would hope now that people will listen. We have nothing to hide. It has been very frustrating listening to all this nonsense.
"As a police officer you don't take sides, you follow the evidence and report what you find and if you don't find enough evidence then you report that. Let's be clear. He was convicted and then he was convicted again after an appeal.
"Are we saying eight Scottish high court judges don't know what they are talking about?"
He was supported yesterday by John Crawford, a fellow detective, who said: "I think the compassion angle was all wrong. It was inevitable that people would use it against the decision he made as it was so obvious that Megrahi did not show one jot of compassion when he cold bloodedly went about his business of killing 270 innocent people."
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.
It is par for the course for anyone who dares to challenge the official explanation of Lockerbie to be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist by those, like Mr Henderson, who have a vested interest in upholding the official version. I am used to it. But what is noteworthy is that such people never mention the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and its six grounds for holding that Mr Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice. One of those grounds was that, on an issue absolutely central to the Zeist court's guilty verdict (the date of purchase in Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb) no reasonable court could have reached the view on the evidence led that it was the date on which Megrahi was on the island.
It is also annoying that responsible journalists let people like Mr Henderson get away with statements like "He was convicted and then he was convicted again after an appeal. Are we saying eight Scottish high court judges don't know what they are talking about?"
These journalists know, because they read this blog, that the reference to eight judges convicting Megrahi is false. Here, as I am weary of saying, is the true position:
The five judges in Megrhi's first appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The factual position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."]
Sunday 23 August 2009
CIA spook says Megrahi was freed before appeal humiliated justice system
[This is a headline over an article in today's edition of the Scottish tabloid, the Sunday Mail. It reads in part:]
A CIA terror expert who worked on the Lockerbie investigation has claimed Megrahi would have been freed on appeal.
In an exclusive interview, retired case officer Robert Baer has revealed details of the secret dossier of evidence Megrahi hoped would clear his name.
Baer claims the appeal, which he worked on, could have done serious damage to our legal system.
And he insists Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had little option other than to release Megrahi.
Baer claimed: Key witnesses - including Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci - were "manipulated".
Vital details freely available to intelligence agencies were withheld from the original prosecution.
Megrahi's appeal papers would have proven beyond doubt the bombing was orchestrated by Iran.
During his 20-year CIA career, Baer worked "on assignment" across the globe and was investigated by the FBI for allegedly conspiring to assassinate Saddam Hussein.
His book See No Evil was the basis for the hit George Clooney movie Syriana. Clooney's character was based on Baer.
The 57-year-old, who lives in Colorado, said: "Your justice secretary had two choices - sneak into Megrahi's cell and smother him with his pillow or release him.
"The end game came down to damage limitation because the evidence amassed by his appeal team is explosive and extremely damning to your system of justice.
"There is hard evidence of other nations - Iran particularly - being responsible for this atrocity.
"The CIA knew this almost from the moment the plane exploded. This decision to free Megrahi was about protecting the integrity of your justiciary because the appeal papers prove Iran was involved.
"That doesn't mean Megrahi is innocent but had it been presented at Camp Zeist, there would never have been a conviction. I knew this information back then so you can rest assured both MI5 and MI6 knew.
"The question is who knew and when you consider they've released him rather than hear his appeal, you can draw your own conclusions.
"The decision serves everybody's purpose. I don't think anyone wanted to face the consequences of that evidence being heard at appeal.
"The Maltese witness was manipulated and perjured himself at trial.
"I talked with the appeals commission investigators and that's what was going to be laid before the hearing. At least one FBI officer was pressured too.
"I spoke to the case officer and he was pressured to change his testimony. It was a bad show all the way but whether Megrahi is innocent is another question entirely.
"If I were the prosecutors, I would not afford Megrahi the opportunity to state what his appeal team discovered. The investigators in the original case did not get all the information we had.
"If I knew this stuff, you can guarantee MI5 and MI6 knew it long before his conviction.
"It is at least an act of omission not to tell the Scottish authorities.
"It would be very clear there was some form of prosecutorial misconduct in this case and that Megrahi did not get a fair trial."
A CIA terror expert who worked on the Lockerbie investigation has claimed Megrahi would have been freed on appeal.
In an exclusive interview, retired case officer Robert Baer has revealed details of the secret dossier of evidence Megrahi hoped would clear his name.
Baer claims the appeal, which he worked on, could have done serious damage to our legal system.
And he insists Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had little option other than to release Megrahi.
Baer claimed: Key witnesses - including Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci - were "manipulated".
Vital details freely available to intelligence agencies were withheld from the original prosecution.
Megrahi's appeal papers would have proven beyond doubt the bombing was orchestrated by Iran.
During his 20-year CIA career, Baer worked "on assignment" across the globe and was investigated by the FBI for allegedly conspiring to assassinate Saddam Hussein.
His book See No Evil was the basis for the hit George Clooney movie Syriana. Clooney's character was based on Baer.
The 57-year-old, who lives in Colorado, said: "Your justice secretary had two choices - sneak into Megrahi's cell and smother him with his pillow or release him.
"The end game came down to damage limitation because the evidence amassed by his appeal team is explosive and extremely damning to your system of justice.
"There is hard evidence of other nations - Iran particularly - being responsible for this atrocity.
"The CIA knew this almost from the moment the plane exploded. This decision to free Megrahi was about protecting the integrity of your justiciary because the appeal papers prove Iran was involved.
"That doesn't mean Megrahi is innocent but had it been presented at Camp Zeist, there would never have been a conviction. I knew this information back then so you can rest assured both MI5 and MI6 knew.
"The question is who knew and when you consider they've released him rather than hear his appeal, you can draw your own conclusions.
"The decision serves everybody's purpose. I don't think anyone wanted to face the consequences of that evidence being heard at appeal.
"The Maltese witness was manipulated and perjured himself at trial.
"I talked with the appeals commission investigators and that's what was going to be laid before the hearing. At least one FBI officer was pressured too.
"I spoke to the case officer and he was pressured to change his testimony. It was a bad show all the way but whether Megrahi is innocent is another question entirely.
"If I were the prosecutors, I would not afford Megrahi the opportunity to state what his appeal team discovered. The investigators in the original case did not get all the information we had.
"If I knew this stuff, you can guarantee MI5 and MI6 knew it long before his conviction.
"It is at least an act of omission not to tell the Scottish authorities.
"It would be very clear there was some form of prosecutorial misconduct in this case and that Megrahi did not get a fair trial."
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.]
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.]
A Maltese perspective
[The Malta Independent on Sunday carries an article and an editorial on what should happen now that Abdelbaset Megrahi has returned to Libya after abandoning his appeal (in which one of the issues would have been whether the trial court was entitled to conclude that the suitcase containing the bomb was ingested at Luqa Airport in Malta). The article reads as follows:]
Lockerbie case expert Professor Robert Black has added his name to a growing school of thought that prescribes Malta should demand a separate enquiry into the Lockerbie bombing so as to clear its name as the bomb’s point of departure.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person to have been found guilty of the 1988 terrorist attack that brought down a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland – killing 270 people in the process – was freed from a Scottish prison on Thursday on compassionate grounds, a move allowed under Scottish law for terminally ill prisoners.
But before his release and his subsequent return to Libya was approved, Mr al-Megrahi had dropped an upcoming appeal against his conviction – an appeal that he himself as well as many observers felt he would have won, had it been heard.
But now that the appeal has been dropped, it appears increasingly likely that the victims’ families will never know the truth behind the attack, nor could Malta expect to have its name cleared as the bomb’s staging post.
Contacted by The Malta Independent on Sunday, Professor Black, a former Scottish judge and the architect of the original Lockerbie trial, stressed his conviction that Malta should be demanding a separate enquiry into the bombing so as to remove the blemish on the country and its airport security. Such an enquiry, he suggests, could be carried out by the European Union at Malta’s behest.
“I think the Maltese government should be pressing very hard within the EU for an enquiry into Lockerbie,” Professor Black comments.
“The evidence that the bomb started out its fatal progress from Luqa Airport was some of the weakest in the Zeist trial but it was swallowed by the judges – it had to be, if they were going to convict Megrahi.
“The evidence established that security and baggage reconciliation systems at the airport were of a high international standard – much higher than those then operative at Heathrow. Yet the judges, on the flimsiest of evidence – a dubious interpretation of a computer print-out from Frankfurt Airport – held that Malta was the point of ingestion.
“This unwarranted slur on Maltese airport security should not be allowed to remain. I would strongly encourage the Government of Malta to take such steps as membership of the EU accords it to have this stigma removed.”
Mr al-Megrahi’s appeal had been granted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found the reliability of Maltese evidence used to convict the former Libyan intelligence agent of carrying out as highly questionable and recommended he be granted an appeal.
Professor Black, himself from Lockerbie, had drawn up the framework for al-Megrahi’s trial, held in the Netherlands under Scottish law, which led to his conviction in 2001. Since then, Professor Black has continually criticised the court’s verdict, contending that al-Megrahi was innocent and that Malta was not the bomb’s point of departure.
[The editorial headed "The appeal that should have been heard" reads in part:]
Now that the appeal lodged by the convicted Lockerbie bomber has been dropped once and for all, the families of the 270 victims of what was the worst terrorist attack in history on British soil stand a very good chance of never knowing how, why and by whom their loved ones were taken from them so tragically just four days before Christmas in 1988.
Nor will Malta’s name ever be cleared by a court of law over its apparent role, as the bomb’s point of departure, in the tragedy. The country has been dogged over the last 21 years by the Lockerbie prosecution’s contention that the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland on 21 December 1988 began its deadly journey on an Air Malta flight out of Luqa Airport.
Indeed, the only hope of answers for the families on both sides of the Atlantic, which incidentally hold very different views on the guilt of the convicted bomber, of learning the truth lies in the possibility of a separate enquiry into the case.
Malta would also have much to gain from such an enquiry – having been branded as the place where the bomb began its travels, and with both underlying and outright implications of lax airport security and the country’s association, however distant, with such a heinous act of terrorism.
As one of the Lockerbie case’s leading authorities points out in today’s issue, the evidence presented during the trial that the bomb had originated at Luqa Airport was some of the weakest of the entire proceedings, and Malta has a good case to bring to the European Union for such an enquiry.
Malta also deserves some concrete answers about its role in the tragedy, and it should be lobbying at all levels for an investigation that would, albeit outside a court of law, at least hear out the new evidence and arguments that were to have been presented by the defence team at the appeal, which mainly dealt with the weaknesses in the Maltese testimony that led to the conviction.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a former employee with Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta and the only person to have been found guilty of the terrorist attack, was convicted largely on the basis of evidence supplied by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci – of the now infamous Mary’s House on Tower Road, Sliema.
In his evidence, Mr Gauci identified Mr al-Megrahi as the purchaser of articles of clothing and an umbrella found in the suitcase containing the bomb – placed on an Air Malta flight and transferred to the ill-fated Pan Am flight in Frankfurt.
But in reviewing the request for an appeal, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988” – the very argument that had sealed the indictment against Mr al-Megrahi.
In recommending that the appeal be heard, the Commission found that although it had been proven that Mr al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions during the month in question, it was determined through the new evidence submitted that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
The evidence that was not heard at the trial concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been illuminated in Sliema near Mary’s House which, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, indicates the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that Mr al-Megrahi was in Malta before 6 December. (...)
Mr al-Megrahi’s lawyers have also claimed that Mr Gauci had given contradictory evidence, including differing dates of purchase and his account of the sale itself, and that, on one occasion, he had even identified Palestinian terrorist leader Abu Talb as the purchaser.
And then there are the other allegation made by Mr al-Megrahi’s defence team that Scottish detectives had coached Mr Gauci on at least 23 occasions, sometimes over alleged fishing trips on the Scottish lochs, and that he also received up to US$2 million in return for his testimony.
A delegation from the Scottish Crown was also due to travel to Malta to seek consent for the disclosure of sensitive documents related to the case, specifically statements given to the police in September 1989 by a friend of Mr Gauci attesting the former’s concern that Mr Gauci had identified the wrong man – evidence the defence team had argued could have exonerated their client but which had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Mr Gauci’s friend had apparently raised concerns over the fact that he made a transaction at the shop that bore a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described in his testimony.
There are so many questions about the case that are still lingering or, rather, festering, that one questions whether the truth behind the Lockerbie bombing will ever be known.
Perhaps it is up to Malta, which has found itself right in the middle of the controversy for over two decades now and through no fault of its own, to find a way to force that truth to come out.
[The Sunday Times of Malta publishes an article headed "Malta had 'no connection' with Lockerbie bomb - government". It contains the following:]
Malta had "no connection" with the bomb that exploded aboard an aircraft over Lockerbie in 1988, Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg told The Sunday Times yesterday.
"The position of the government has never changed on this matter - Malta was not involved in this incident. The bomb never left from Malta," Dr Borg said in the first government reaction since the controversial release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi. (...)
But Dr Borg said that the withdrawal by Mr Al-Megrahi of the second appeal before the Scottish courts meant that no new light could now be shed on the incident.
Asked if he believed Mr Al-Megrahi was innocent, the Foreign Minister said: "The Scottish [Criminal Cases] Review [Commission] said there were sufficient grounds which could have led to the reopening of the case. Unfortunately this hasn't happened."
Lockerbie case expert Professor Robert Black has added his name to a growing school of thought that prescribes Malta should demand a separate enquiry into the Lockerbie bombing so as to clear its name as the bomb’s point of departure.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person to have been found guilty of the 1988 terrorist attack that brought down a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland – killing 270 people in the process – was freed from a Scottish prison on Thursday on compassionate grounds, a move allowed under Scottish law for terminally ill prisoners.
But before his release and his subsequent return to Libya was approved, Mr al-Megrahi had dropped an upcoming appeal against his conviction – an appeal that he himself as well as many observers felt he would have won, had it been heard.
But now that the appeal has been dropped, it appears increasingly likely that the victims’ families will never know the truth behind the attack, nor could Malta expect to have its name cleared as the bomb’s staging post.
Contacted by The Malta Independent on Sunday, Professor Black, a former Scottish judge and the architect of the original Lockerbie trial, stressed his conviction that Malta should be demanding a separate enquiry into the bombing so as to remove the blemish on the country and its airport security. Such an enquiry, he suggests, could be carried out by the European Union at Malta’s behest.
“I think the Maltese government should be pressing very hard within the EU for an enquiry into Lockerbie,” Professor Black comments.
“The evidence that the bomb started out its fatal progress from Luqa Airport was some of the weakest in the Zeist trial but it was swallowed by the judges – it had to be, if they were going to convict Megrahi.
“The evidence established that security and baggage reconciliation systems at the airport were of a high international standard – much higher than those then operative at Heathrow. Yet the judges, on the flimsiest of evidence – a dubious interpretation of a computer print-out from Frankfurt Airport – held that Malta was the point of ingestion.
“This unwarranted slur on Maltese airport security should not be allowed to remain. I would strongly encourage the Government of Malta to take such steps as membership of the EU accords it to have this stigma removed.”
Mr al-Megrahi’s appeal had been granted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found the reliability of Maltese evidence used to convict the former Libyan intelligence agent of carrying out as highly questionable and recommended he be granted an appeal.
Professor Black, himself from Lockerbie, had drawn up the framework for al-Megrahi’s trial, held in the Netherlands under Scottish law, which led to his conviction in 2001. Since then, Professor Black has continually criticised the court’s verdict, contending that al-Megrahi was innocent and that Malta was not the bomb’s point of departure.
[The editorial headed "The appeal that should have been heard" reads in part:]
Now that the appeal lodged by the convicted Lockerbie bomber has been dropped once and for all, the families of the 270 victims of what was the worst terrorist attack in history on British soil stand a very good chance of never knowing how, why and by whom their loved ones were taken from them so tragically just four days before Christmas in 1988.
Nor will Malta’s name ever be cleared by a court of law over its apparent role, as the bomb’s point of departure, in the tragedy. The country has been dogged over the last 21 years by the Lockerbie prosecution’s contention that the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland on 21 December 1988 began its deadly journey on an Air Malta flight out of Luqa Airport.
Indeed, the only hope of answers for the families on both sides of the Atlantic, which incidentally hold very different views on the guilt of the convicted bomber, of learning the truth lies in the possibility of a separate enquiry into the case.
Malta would also have much to gain from such an enquiry – having been branded as the place where the bomb began its travels, and with both underlying and outright implications of lax airport security and the country’s association, however distant, with such a heinous act of terrorism.
As one of the Lockerbie case’s leading authorities points out in today’s issue, the evidence presented during the trial that the bomb had originated at Luqa Airport was some of the weakest of the entire proceedings, and Malta has a good case to bring to the European Union for such an enquiry.
Malta also deserves some concrete answers about its role in the tragedy, and it should be lobbying at all levels for an investigation that would, albeit outside a court of law, at least hear out the new evidence and arguments that were to have been presented by the defence team at the appeal, which mainly dealt with the weaknesses in the Maltese testimony that led to the conviction.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a former employee with Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta and the only person to have been found guilty of the terrorist attack, was convicted largely on the basis of evidence supplied by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci – of the now infamous Mary’s House on Tower Road, Sliema.
In his evidence, Mr Gauci identified Mr al-Megrahi as the purchaser of articles of clothing and an umbrella found in the suitcase containing the bomb – placed on an Air Malta flight and transferred to the ill-fated Pan Am flight in Frankfurt.
But in reviewing the request for an appeal, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988” – the very argument that had sealed the indictment against Mr al-Megrahi.
In recommending that the appeal be heard, the Commission found that although it had been proven that Mr al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions during the month in question, it was determined through the new evidence submitted that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
The evidence that was not heard at the trial concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been illuminated in Sliema near Mary’s House which, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, indicates the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that Mr al-Megrahi was in Malta before 6 December. (...)
Mr al-Megrahi’s lawyers have also claimed that Mr Gauci had given contradictory evidence, including differing dates of purchase and his account of the sale itself, and that, on one occasion, he had even identified Palestinian terrorist leader Abu Talb as the purchaser.
And then there are the other allegation made by Mr al-Megrahi’s defence team that Scottish detectives had coached Mr Gauci on at least 23 occasions, sometimes over alleged fishing trips on the Scottish lochs, and that he also received up to US$2 million in return for his testimony.
A delegation from the Scottish Crown was also due to travel to Malta to seek consent for the disclosure of sensitive documents related to the case, specifically statements given to the police in September 1989 by a friend of Mr Gauci attesting the former’s concern that Mr Gauci had identified the wrong man – evidence the defence team had argued could have exonerated their client but which had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Mr Gauci’s friend had apparently raised concerns over the fact that he made a transaction at the shop that bore a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described in his testimony.
There are so many questions about the case that are still lingering or, rather, festering, that one questions whether the truth behind the Lockerbie bombing will ever be known.
Perhaps it is up to Malta, which has found itself right in the middle of the controversy for over two decades now and through no fault of its own, to find a way to force that truth to come out.
[The Sunday Times of Malta publishes an article headed "Malta had 'no connection' with Lockerbie bomb - government". It contains the following:]
Malta had "no connection" with the bomb that exploded aboard an aircraft over Lockerbie in 1988, Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg told The Sunday Times yesterday.
"The position of the government has never changed on this matter - Malta was not involved in this incident. The bomb never left from Malta," Dr Borg said in the first government reaction since the controversial release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi. (...)
But Dr Borg said that the withdrawal by Mr Al-Megrahi of the second appeal before the Scottish courts meant that no new light could now be shed on the incident.
Asked if he believed Mr Al-Megrahi was innocent, the Foreign Minister said: "The Scottish [Criminal Cases] Review [Commission] said there were sufficient grounds which could have led to the reopening of the case. Unfortunately this hasn't happened."
$2m witness payment, bogus forensic evidence and Pentagon memo blaming Iran: How Lockerbie bomber appeal threatened Scottish justice
[This is the headline over a long and highly detailed article in the Mail on Sunday. The following are excerpts:]
In a submission to the Court of Appeal running to thousands of words, Megrahi’s lawyers list 20 grounds of appeal which include:
* Details of a catalogue of deliberately undisclosed evidence at the original trial.
* Allegations of ‘tampering’ with evidence.
* A summary of how American intelligence agencies were convinced that Iran, not Libya, was involved but that their reports were not open to the 2001 trial.
[Note by RB: I strongly suspect that what is being referred to is the submission made on Mr Megrahi's behalf in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, not the Grounds of Appeal lodged with the Criminal Appeal Court once the SCCRC had referred the case back.]
The closely guarded submission was obtained by Ian Ferguson, an investigative journalist and co-author of the book Cover-up of Convenience - The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie.
But the evidence will never be tested in open court after the dying Libyan abandoned it last week to spend his final days with his family.
Mr Ferguson, who has had 100 hours of unprecedented access to the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent during his eight years in jail, claimed last night: ‘From the start there was a determination to try to prevent this appeal being heard.
'It opened but never got off the ground, with stall after stall as each month Megrahi weakened with the cancer that was killing him.
‘There was rejoicing in the Crown Office in Edinburgh when he was released and the appeal abandoned.
'There may well be political manoeuvres behind his release but at the heart was a decision to save the face of the Scottish judiciary - in particular the Crown Prosecution, who would have been shown to have been involved in an abuse of process by non-disclosure of witness statements.’
It took the use of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to unlock the full intelligence documents which are now highlighted in the appeal submission.
They show memos from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which suggested the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, was in response to the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the American warship USS Vincennes five months earlier.
In a memo dated September 24, 1989, and reproduced in the appeal submission, the DIA states: ‘The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.
‘The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command [PFLP-GC] leader, for a sum of $1million [£600,000.
‘$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammed Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses.
'The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.’ (...)
The memos and reports, denied in full to the original trial, were available to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, two years ago, cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction based on six separate counts of the legal argument.
Their view opened the way for a second appeal. That report has never been made public.
Mr Ferguson said: ‘Megrahi was made the scapegoat for whatever reason and from that point everything went in reverse to try to make the crime fit.’
Central to Megrahi’s conviction was the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who claimed that Megrahi had bought clothes allegedly found in the suitcase bomb.
Lawyers were due to claim that Gauci was paid a $2million reward for his evidence, which followed more than 20 police interviews, and that many of the often wildly conflicting statements taken on each occasion were withheld from the defence.
Mr Ferguson says that, although too late for the submission, lawyers were planning to spring a witness called David Wright, an English builder who was on holiday in Malta and who is said to have information about the clothes shop.
He would have produced evidence as to the date and buyer of the clothes, seriously undermining Gauci’s reliability and credibility.
It is now believed that Gauci has moved to Australia.
Other new evidence listed in the grounds for appeal would have called in new witnesses to prove that the fragment of circuit board from a timing device found near the crash and pointing to Libyan involvement simply could not have survived such an explosion.
Subsequent analysis carried out by an independent forensic scientist found no trace of explosive on the tiny piece. (...)
Also due to be called was a witness who would allegedly discredit the accepted account that the suitcase in which the bomb was placed had somehow travelled unchecked and unaccompanied from Malta to Frankfurt and on to the Pan Am flight.
Questions would have been asked as to how a fragment of cloth - believed to be from the clothing wrapped around the bomb - subsequently came to be packed with material linking it direct to the bomb.
Mr Ferguson added: ‘Had this appeal gone ahead and witnesses recalled and cross-examined, I believe it would be shown that some had most definitely perjured themselves or deliberately misled the court.
‘It is no wonder that some people were hoping Megrahi would die before certain witnesses were called.
'The release on compassionate grounds is a blessed release for them, as much as it was for him.’
Mr Ferguson, who now lives in France but continues to pursue ‘leads’ in the case, first met Megrahi in 2002 and says he was a constant visitor over the years as they went over every aspect of the evidence against him.
‘From the start I was struck by his total, unchanging, quiet protestation of his innocence.
'He readily admitted that his job was sanction-busting for the Libyan government but never anything more sinister.
‘He frequently said he knew his government were involved in many things but always looked me straight in the eye and said: "I am not a killer".
Despite seeing the by then frail and faltering Megrahi only four weeks ago as he waited to hear if he could be sent home, Mr Ferguson insists he did not press him on any political dealings which may have been going on behind the scenes.
He added: ‘Politics may have got him into prison but I believed it was only evidence that could get him out.
'I never believed, though, that he would give up the appeal after so many years of fighting for it. That was all we focused on in our meetings - his refusal to give up.
'At the end, though, I agreed with his decision because, otherwise, he would not have been able to get what he most wanted - to live out his last days with his family.’
Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer in September last year.
Mr Ferguson, who saw him two months later, said: ‘He already looked very different. His complexion was drawn and he’d lost a lot of weight.
'He cried as he told me how he had been called into the prison governor’s office and learnt his cancer was inoperable and ultimately untreatable.
‘He called his wife and they were both crying for 15 minutes. He wasn’t embarrassed to cry in front of me.
'I’d had cancer myself in 2002, so I knew what he was going through.
'I contacted a psychologist specialising in this disease who I hoped would help him deal with it.’
Since Megrahi’s diagnosis, Mr Ferguson has seen him four times.
He added: ‘Our visits were shortened because he couldn’t sit down for too long before being in pain.
'Because he is so religious he wasn’t scared of death but he was desperate to have his name cleared before he died.
‘I felt he was being blackmailed but he never admitted it.
'The Crown wouldn’t agree to transfer him unless he gave up his appeal and the longer they stalled the more fragile he became physically. In the end he just couldn’t continue.’
He first met Megrahi and his lawyer in Glasgow’s Barlinnie prison - and quickly became convinced that he was innocent.
He said: ‘The first thing I asked him was if he had had anything to do with the bombing.
'He insisted he hadn’t and was convinced from the start his conviction would be overturned. He seemed smart and intelligent without being arrogant and very angry.
'The evidence was purely circumstantial and came at a time when the West wanted to implicate Libya at a time when it was politically inconvenient to accuse the real culprits.’
Over the months the pair reached a tacit understanding: ‘It was never spoken outright but Megrahi knew I would never jeopardise his trust by writing about our meetings.’
In a submission to the Court of Appeal running to thousands of words, Megrahi’s lawyers list 20 grounds of appeal which include:
* Details of a catalogue of deliberately undisclosed evidence at the original trial.
* Allegations of ‘tampering’ with evidence.
* A summary of how American intelligence agencies were convinced that Iran, not Libya, was involved but that their reports were not open to the 2001 trial.
[Note by RB: I strongly suspect that what is being referred to is the submission made on Mr Megrahi's behalf in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, not the Grounds of Appeal lodged with the Criminal Appeal Court once the SCCRC had referred the case back.]
The closely guarded submission was obtained by Ian Ferguson, an investigative journalist and co-author of the book Cover-up of Convenience - The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie.
But the evidence will never be tested in open court after the dying Libyan abandoned it last week to spend his final days with his family.
Mr Ferguson, who has had 100 hours of unprecedented access to the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent during his eight years in jail, claimed last night: ‘From the start there was a determination to try to prevent this appeal being heard.
'It opened but never got off the ground, with stall after stall as each month Megrahi weakened with the cancer that was killing him.
‘There was rejoicing in the Crown Office in Edinburgh when he was released and the appeal abandoned.
'There may well be political manoeuvres behind his release but at the heart was a decision to save the face of the Scottish judiciary - in particular the Crown Prosecution, who would have been shown to have been involved in an abuse of process by non-disclosure of witness statements.’
It took the use of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to unlock the full intelligence documents which are now highlighted in the appeal submission.
They show memos from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which suggested the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, was in response to the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the American warship USS Vincennes five months earlier.
In a memo dated September 24, 1989, and reproduced in the appeal submission, the DIA states: ‘The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.
‘The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command [PFLP-GC] leader, for a sum of $1million [£600,000.
‘$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammed Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses.
'The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.’ (...)
The memos and reports, denied in full to the original trial, were available to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, two years ago, cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction based on six separate counts of the legal argument.
Their view opened the way for a second appeal. That report has never been made public.
Mr Ferguson said: ‘Megrahi was made the scapegoat for whatever reason and from that point everything went in reverse to try to make the crime fit.’
Central to Megrahi’s conviction was the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who claimed that Megrahi had bought clothes allegedly found in the suitcase bomb.
Lawyers were due to claim that Gauci was paid a $2million reward for his evidence, which followed more than 20 police interviews, and that many of the often wildly conflicting statements taken on each occasion were withheld from the defence.
Mr Ferguson says that, although too late for the submission, lawyers were planning to spring a witness called David Wright, an English builder who was on holiday in Malta and who is said to have information about the clothes shop.
He would have produced evidence as to the date and buyer of the clothes, seriously undermining Gauci’s reliability and credibility.
It is now believed that Gauci has moved to Australia.
Other new evidence listed in the grounds for appeal would have called in new witnesses to prove that the fragment of circuit board from a timing device found near the crash and pointing to Libyan involvement simply could not have survived such an explosion.
Subsequent analysis carried out by an independent forensic scientist found no trace of explosive on the tiny piece. (...)
Also due to be called was a witness who would allegedly discredit the accepted account that the suitcase in which the bomb was placed had somehow travelled unchecked and unaccompanied from Malta to Frankfurt and on to the Pan Am flight.
Questions would have been asked as to how a fragment of cloth - believed to be from the clothing wrapped around the bomb - subsequently came to be packed with material linking it direct to the bomb.
Mr Ferguson added: ‘Had this appeal gone ahead and witnesses recalled and cross-examined, I believe it would be shown that some had most definitely perjured themselves or deliberately misled the court.
‘It is no wonder that some people were hoping Megrahi would die before certain witnesses were called.
'The release on compassionate grounds is a blessed release for them, as much as it was for him.’
Mr Ferguson, who now lives in France but continues to pursue ‘leads’ in the case, first met Megrahi in 2002 and says he was a constant visitor over the years as they went over every aspect of the evidence against him.
‘From the start I was struck by his total, unchanging, quiet protestation of his innocence.
'He readily admitted that his job was sanction-busting for the Libyan government but never anything more sinister.
‘He frequently said he knew his government were involved in many things but always looked me straight in the eye and said: "I am not a killer".
Despite seeing the by then frail and faltering Megrahi only four weeks ago as he waited to hear if he could be sent home, Mr Ferguson insists he did not press him on any political dealings which may have been going on behind the scenes.
He added: ‘Politics may have got him into prison but I believed it was only evidence that could get him out.
'I never believed, though, that he would give up the appeal after so many years of fighting for it. That was all we focused on in our meetings - his refusal to give up.
'At the end, though, I agreed with his decision because, otherwise, he would not have been able to get what he most wanted - to live out his last days with his family.’
Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer in September last year.
Mr Ferguson, who saw him two months later, said: ‘He already looked very different. His complexion was drawn and he’d lost a lot of weight.
'He cried as he told me how he had been called into the prison governor’s office and learnt his cancer was inoperable and ultimately untreatable.
‘He called his wife and they were both crying for 15 minutes. He wasn’t embarrassed to cry in front of me.
'I’d had cancer myself in 2002, so I knew what he was going through.
'I contacted a psychologist specialising in this disease who I hoped would help him deal with it.’
Since Megrahi’s diagnosis, Mr Ferguson has seen him four times.
He added: ‘Our visits were shortened because he couldn’t sit down for too long before being in pain.
'Because he is so religious he wasn’t scared of death but he was desperate to have his name cleared before he died.
‘I felt he was being blackmailed but he never admitted it.
'The Crown wouldn’t agree to transfer him unless he gave up his appeal and the longer they stalled the more fragile he became physically. In the end he just couldn’t continue.’
He first met Megrahi and his lawyer in Glasgow’s Barlinnie prison - and quickly became convinced that he was innocent.
He said: ‘The first thing I asked him was if he had had anything to do with the bombing.
'He insisted he hadn’t and was convinced from the start his conviction would be overturned. He seemed smart and intelligent without being arrogant and very angry.
'The evidence was purely circumstantial and came at a time when the West wanted to implicate Libya at a time when it was politically inconvenient to accuse the real culprits.’
Over the months the pair reached a tacit understanding: ‘It was never spoken outright but Megrahi knew I would never jeopardise his trust by writing about our meetings.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)